Hi Greg,
I have a follow up fix for this patch that is a lot cleaner and will
hopefully apply cleanly to all the LTS branches. Let me upload the new
patch and get the final ACK from the netfilter devs.
Thanks,
Will
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 1:23 AM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 07:07:30PM +0000, Will McVicker wrote:
> > Hi,
> > The attached patch fixes an OOB memory access security bug. The bug is
> > already fixed in the upstream kernel due to the vulnerable code being
> > refactored in commit fe2d0020994c ("netfilter: nat: remove
> > l4proto->in_range") and commit d6c4c8ffb5e5 ("netfilter: nat: remove
> > l3proto struct"), but the 4.19 and below LTS branches remain vulnerable.
> > I have verifed the OOB kernel panic is fixed with this patch on both the
> > 4.19 and 4.14 kernels using the approariate hardware.
> >
> > Please review the fix and apply to branches 4.19.y, 4.14.y, 4.9.y and
> > 4.4.y.
>
> This patch only applied to the 4.19.y tree, it failed to apply to all of
> the other branches:
>
> Applying patch netfilter-nat-add-range-checks-for-access-to-nf_nat_lprotos.patch
> patching file net/ipv4/netfilter/nf_nat_l3proto_ipv4.c
> patching file net/ipv6/netfilter/nf_nat_l3proto_ipv6.c
> patching file net/netfilter/nf_nat_core.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 45 (offset -19 lines).
> Hunk #2 succeeded at 298 with fuzz 1 (offset -23 lines).
> Hunk #3 succeeded at 309 (offset -23 lines).
> Hunk #4 succeeded at 376 (offset -24 lines).
> Hunk #5 succeeded at 399 (offset -24 lines).
> Hunk #6 succeeded at 419 (offset -24 lines).
> Hunk #7 FAILED at 526.
> Hunk #8 succeeded at 733 (offset -100 lines).
> 1 out of 8 hunks FAILED -- rejects in file net/netfilter/nf_nat_core.c
> patching file net/netfilter/nf_nat_helper.c
>
> And you didn't cc: the netfilter developers for this, are they ok with
> this? I need an ack from them to be able to take this.
>
> Can you fix this up, resend working versions for all branches, and get
> their acks?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
