On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 10:47:00AM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jun 2019 at 08:57, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 11:42:13AM -0700, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > > > From: Gen Zhang <blackgod016574@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > commit 4e78921ba4dd0aca1cc89168f45039add4183f8e upstream. > > > > > > The old_memmap flow in efi_call_phys_prolog() performs numerous memory > > > allocations, and either does not check for failure at all, or it does > > > but fails to propagate it back to the caller, which may end up calling > > > into the firmware with an incomplete 1:1 mapping. > > > > > > So let's fix this by returning NULL from efi_call_phys_prolog() on > > > memory allocation failures only, and by handling this condition in the > > > caller. Also, clean up any half baked sets of page tables that we may > > > have created before returning with a NULL return value. > > > > > > Note that any failure at this level will trigger a panic() two levels > > > up, so none of this makes a huge difference, but it is a nice cleanup > > > nonetheless. > > > > With a description like this, why is this needed in a stable kernel if > > it does not really fix anything useful? > > > > Because it fixes a 'CVE', remember? :-) Thanks for your concerns. I have received other people disputing the CVEs these days. And if you are interested, you could kindly search all the CVEs I requested, almost all of them are marked *DISPUTED* or under update to that, haha... Anyway, I am just a starter in requesting CVE. It's my instructor told me to request CVE for the patches... It is disputed by everybody now. I am getting to know that a bug hard to exploit can not request CVE. We should be really careful in doing so. Right? Thanks Gen
