> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH [mailto:gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 11:55 PM > To: Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Seunghun Han <kkamagui@xxxxxxxxx>; > Schmauss, Erik <erik.schmauss@xxxxxxxxx>; Wysocki, Rafael J > <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>; kernel-team <kernel-team@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: ACPICA: acpi: acpica: fix acpi operand cache leak in nseval.c > > On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 02:30:14PM -0700, Mark Salyzyn wrote: > > ToT commit 97f3c0a4b0579b646b6b10ae5a3d59f0441cc12c > > "ToT"? What does that mean? > > > > > (ACPICA: acpi: acpica: fix acpi operand cache leak in nseval.c) > > > > was assigned CVE-2017-13695 > > https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2017-13695 > > and has been public since August 25 2017 > > > > Please apply to 3.18, 4.4 and 4.9 stable kernels for the reasons > > outlined in the body of the patch: > > > > "This cache leak causes a security threat because an old kernel (<= > > 4.9) shows memory locations of kernel functions in stack dump. Some > > malicious users could use this information to neutralize kernel ASLR." > > > > Bonus Points: Since the patch is ToT upstream, relieving the bug that > > results in the memory leak, even despite the non-CVE security status > > for > > <=4.12 kernels, it may be advised to also include this patch in 4.14.y > > stable as well. > > Well, I wouldn't apply a patch to just older kernels and not newer ones, that just > causes confusion. > > But I'm going to push back on this. The kernel security team said something like > "this is crazy, if you control ACPI tables you have bigger problems" when this bug > was reported and told the developer to just submit this as a normal code > cleanup. > > Granting this a CVE was, in my opinion, a total mistake as well. This doesn't fix > any "real" problem that anyone can hit in the wild from what I can tell. And > again, if you can modify ACPI tables, there are much bigger problems you can > cause on the hardware. Agreed. Could we somehow close this CVE? > > Because of this, why would you need/want this in the stable kernel releases? It > doesn't fix any real bug, only a theoretical one, right? The AML would need to be carefully crafted. So yes, this could happen in theory. > > ACPI developers, do you think this should be backported? One reason to backport this patch is that it performs memory reclamation for certain code paths. So no, not necessary but it might be a nice-to-have. Erik > > thanks, > > greg k-h
