From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:7052 "EHLO szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755323AbcEaHp1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 May 2016 03:45:27 -0400 Subject: Re: Vulnerability [CVE-2014-4608] recurs in Linux 3.17.2-4.5 To: =?UTF-8?B?5YiY6ZW/6bij?= , <506012274@qq.com> References: CC: From: Hanjun Guo Message-ID: <574D40F6.3080609@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 15:44:54 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Zhijun, On 2016/5/31 14:45, 刘长鸣 wrote: > Dear Sir/Madam: > I'm a postgraduate student majoring in information security and > I'm very interested in software vulnerabilities, I think it's really > fascinating and I'm doing some research about how to find > vulnerabilities automatically. I have done some tests with Linux bug > commits. And I found that the patch codes ( fixing CVE-2014-4608 ) > didn't appear in the version 3.17.2 to 4.5. I'm just wondering if this Yes, it should not in those stable versions, as the commit 206a81c (lzo: properly check for overruns) is not the right fix, it was reverted in commit af958a38a: commit af958a38a60c7ca3d8a39c918c1baa2ff7b6b233 Author: Willy Tarreau Date: Sat Sep 27 12:31:36 2014 +0200 Revert "lzo: properly check for overruns" This reverts commit 206a81c ("lzo: properly check for overruns"). As analysed by Willem Pinckaers, this fix is still incomplete on certain rare corner cases, and it is easier to restart from the original code. Reported-by: Willem Pinckaers Cc: "Don A. Bailey" Cc: stable Signed-off-by: Willy Tarreau Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman This revert is merged in v3.18-rc1, and I think there is a updated fix for this bug: 72cf901 lzo: check for length overrun in variable length encoding. > means the vulnerability ( CVE-2014-4608 ) recurs in Linux 3.17.2-4.5. > If not, is it fixed in another way? > Thanks for your time, I'll appreciate it very much if you can give > an answer. Just as I mentioned above, commit 72cf901 should be the right fix. Thanks Hanjun