Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-186047-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <5f3cccea-eff5-40f7-a868-743ca837e84d@suse.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 12:21:54 +0200
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Davide Benini <davide.benini@suse.com>
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-27429: netrom: Fix a data-race around
 sysctl_netrom_obsolescence_count_initialiser
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: cve@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Jason Xing <kernelxing@tencent.com>, linux-cve-announce@vger.kernel.org,
 Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
References: <2024051722-CVE-2024-27429-878c@gregkh>
 <ZkxdqOUek_MHqIMn@tiehlicka> <2024052105-pulsate-reborn-119a@gregkh>
 <ZkzGL_vXciG7ipm5@tiehlicka> <2024052219-storewide-arrogance-8d54@gregkh>
Content-Language: en-US, it
In-Reply-To: <2024052219-storewide-arrogance-8d54@gregkh>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 22/05/24 07:11, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 06:05:03PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Tue 21-05-24 16:40:24, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> This and couple of others are all having the same pattern. Adding
>>>> READ_ONCE for an integer value with a claim that this might race with
>>>> sysctl updates. While the claim about the race is correct I fail to see
>>>> how this could have any security consequences. Even if a partial write
>>>> was observed which sounds _more_ than theoretical these all are merely
>>>> timeouts and delays.
>>>>
>>>> Is there anything I am missing?
>>>
>>> Nope, you are right, our fault, I'll go revoke this now.
>>
>> please also revoke all others touching the same function.
> 
> I don't see any other CVEs that reference that function, but I do see
> some that reference the same type of issue in the same file:
> 	CVE-2024-27420
> 	CVE-2024-27421
> 	CVE-2024-27430
> are those what you are referring to?  If not, which ones do you think
> also should be revoked?

It seems all the CVEs in the range [CVE-2024-27420, CVE-2024-27430] are of the same kind.
Shouldn't all be revoked?

Thanks
Davide Benini