Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-81792-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 16:25:09 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2023-52451: powerpc/pseries/memhp: Fix access beyond end of
 drmem array
Message-ID: <ZdytVTOgfvKBBvtn@tiehlicka>
References: <2024022257-CVE-2023-52451-7bdb@gregkh>
 <Zdylmz28rZ-mCeiN@tiehlicka>
 <2024022639-wronged-grafted-6777@gregkh>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2024022639-wronged-grafted-6777@gregkh>

On Mon 26-02-24 16:06:51, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 03:52:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Thu 22-02-24 17:21:58, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Description
> > > ===========
> > > 
> > > In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:
> > > 
> > > powerpc/pseries/memhp: Fix access beyond end of drmem array
> > > 
> > > dlpar_memory_remove_by_index() may access beyond the bounds of the
> > > drmem lmb array when the LMB lookup fails to match an entry with the
> > > given DRC index. When the search fails, the cursor is left pointing to
> > > &drmem_info->lmbs[drmem_info->n_lmbs], which is one element past the
> > > last valid entry in the array. The debug message at the end of the
> > > function then dereferences this pointer:
> > > 
> > >         pr_debug("Failed to hot-remove memory at %llx\n",
> > >                  lmb->base_addr);
> > 
> > While this is a reasonable fix and the stable material it is really
> > unclear to me why it has gained a CVE. Memory hotplug is a privileged
> > operation. Could you clarify please?
> 
> As you know, history has shown us that accessing out of your allocated
> memory can cause problems, and we can not assume use-cases, as we don't
> know how everyone uses our codebase, so marking places where we fix
> out-of-bound memory accesses is resolving a weakness in the codebase,
> hence a CVE assignment.

Does that mean that any potentially incorrect input provided by an admin is
considered CVE now? I guess we would need to ban interfaces like
/dev/mem and many others.
 
> If your systems are not vulnerable to this specific issue, wonderful, no
> need to take it, but why wouldn't you want to take a fix that resolves a
> known weakness?

I have explicitly said, the fix is reasonable. I just do not see a point
to mark it as CVE. I fail to see any thread model where this would
matter as it would require untrusted privileged actor to trigger it
AFAICS. I am happy to be proven wrong here.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs