Bug 1185942

Summary: socat: possible denial of service with fork
Product: [Other] Security Response Reporter: Vasyl Kaigorodov <vkaigoro>
Component: vulnerabilityAssignee: Red Hat Product Security <security-response-team>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: low Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: unspecifiedCC: bleanhar, ccoleman, dmcphers, jdetiber, jialiu, jkeck, jokerman, kseifried, lmeyer, mmccomas, pwouters, vkaigoro
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Security
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: socat 1.7.3.0, 2.0.0-b8 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-01-27 09:10:38 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1185948    

Description Vasyl Kaigorodov 2015-01-26 16:31:13 UTC 
Below issue was reported [1] in socat:

Socats signal handler implementations are not asnyc-signal-safe. When a signal is triggered while the process is within a non async-signal-safe function the signal handler will call a non sync-signal-safe function too. POSIX specifies the behaviour in this situation as undefined. Dependend on involved functions, libraries, and operating system, the process can continue, freeze, or crash. Mostly this issue occurs when socat is in listening mode with fork option and a couple of child processes terminate at the same time.

[1]: http://www.dest-unreach.org/socat/contrib/socat-secadv6.txt
Comment 1 Vasyl Kaigorodov 2015-01-26 16:31:41 UTC 
Created socat tracking bugs for this issue:

Affects: fedora-all [bug 1185945]
Affects: epel-all [bug 1185946]
Comment 2 Tomas Hoger 2015-01-26 19:30:56 UTC 
This should be a dupe of bug 1185711.
Comment 3 Vasyl Kaigorodov 2015-01-27 09:10:38 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1185711 ***
Comment 4 Vasyl Kaigorodov 2015-01-27 09:13:00 UTC 
(In reply to Tomas Hoger from comment #2)
> This should be a dupe of bug 1185711.

Yes, it is. Thanks for catching this.