oss-sec mailing list archives
Re: econet iovec
From: Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 11:09:34 -0500
This also raises a question of whether it's worth assigning CVEs to every vulnerability that was fixed by a single change in the core code. I'm leaning towards "no". -Dan On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Dan Rosenberg <dan.j.rosenberg () gmail com> wrote:
Yes, this size calculation can overflow, but there's no negative effect, since it is only used to construct a UDP packet, and UDP is not susceptible to overflow issues in its sendmsg() path. On the other hand, the check on line 331 to put an upper bound on the total size can overflow, causing an underallocation on line 344 and a kernel panic on subsequent usage due to bad skbuff alignment. This only affects people using actual native Econet hardware. This was already fixed by recently added checks in iovec size calculations and in the sendto() path for maximum packet size. -Dan On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Thomas Pollet <thomas.pollet () gmail com> wrote:Hi, the AF_ECONET sendmsg iovec code also appears to be vulnerable to an integer overflow that will be fixed by the verify_iovec changes in the 2.6.37 kernel. on line 469: size += iov_len Regards, Thomas
Current thread:
- econet iovec Thomas Pollet (Nov 14)
- Re: econet iovec Dan Rosenberg (Nov 14)
- Re: econet iovec Dan Rosenberg (Nov 14)
- Re: econet iovec Eugene Teo (Nov 14)
- Re: econet iovec Steven M. Christey (Nov 15)
- Re: econet iovec Dan Rosenberg (Nov 15)
- Re: econet iovec Dan Rosenberg (Nov 14)
- Re: econet iovec Dan Rosenberg (Nov 14)