From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:58236 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752039AbdLDMFt (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2017 07:05:49 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:05:56 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Guenter Roeck Cc: Michal Kubecek , netdev@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Fixing CVE-2017-16939 in v4.4.y and possibly v3.18.y Message-ID: <20171204120556.GA4478@kroah.com> References: <20171130183740.GA20343@roeck-us.net> <20171201194857.2rzwjdv5fcoedvrx@unicorn.suse.cz> <4ac5fb52-28f9-7111-483d-f010b093d923@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ac5fb52-28f9-7111-483d-f010b093d923@roeck-us.net> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 04:20:40PM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 12/01/2017 11:48 AM, Michal Kubecek wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 10:37:40AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > The fix for CVE-2017-16939 has been applied to v4.9.y, but not to v4.4.y > > > and older kernels. However, I confirmed that running the published POC > > > (see https://blogs.securiteam.com/index.php/archives/3535) does crash a 4.4 > > > kernel. > > > > > > I confirmed that the following two patches fix the problem in v4.4.y. > > > Please consider applying them to v4.4.y (and possibly v3.18.y). > > > > > > fc9e50f5a5a4e ("netlink: add a start callback for starting a netlink dump") > > > 1137b5e2529a8 ("ipsec: Fix aborted xfrm policy dump crash") > > > > > > My apologies for the noise if this is already under consideration. > > > > It's a bit too big hammer. As Nicolai Stange noticed when we were > > The hammer is just as big as the upstream hammer. Personally I prefer the > upstream patch; I don't see a reason to deviate from upstream just because > the upstream solution is more complex than necessary. > > > handling this for SLE12 (where fc9e50f5a5a4e would break kABI), it's > > I didn't know that this is even a concern for stable releases. Is there > some guideline that kABI changes should be avoided in stable releases ? Nope, for now I don't care about kABI changes in stable releases. I'd almost always prefer to take the upstream patches exactly as-is. thanks, greg k-h