On Fri, Feb 05 2021, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2021 11:36:30 +1100 NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> A recent change to seq_file broke some users which were using seq_file
>> in a non-"standard" way ... though the "standard" isn't documented, so
>> they can be excused. The result is a possible leak - of memory in one
>> case, of references to a 'transport' in the other.
>>
>> These three patches:
>> 1/ document and explain the problem
>> 2/ fix the problem user in x86
>> 3/ fix the problem user in net/sctp
>>
>
> 1f4aace60b0e ("fs/seq_file.c: simplify seq_file iteration code and
> interface") was August 2018, so I don't think "recent" applies here?
I must be getting old :-(
>
> I didn't look closely, but it appears that the sctp procfs file is
> world-readable. So we gave unprivileged userspace the ability to leak
> kernel memory?
Not quite that bad. The x86 problem allows arbitrary memory to be
leaked, but that is in debugfs (as I'm sure you saw) so is root-only.
The sctp one only allows an sctp_transport to be pinned. That is not
good and would, e.g., prevent the module from being unloaded. But
unlike a simple memory leak it won't affect anything outside of sctp.
>
> So I'm thinking that we aim for 5.12-rc1 on all three patches with a cc:stable?
Thanks for looking after these!
NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
