Bug 1392656

Summary: [LLNL 7.4 Bug] fix buffer overflows in util-linux with upstream patch
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: Ben Woodard <woodard>
Component: util-linuxAssignee: Karel Zak <kzak>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Radka Brychtova <rskvaril>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.3CC: foraker1, rskvaril, tdhooge, tgummels, woodard
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: 7.4   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: util-linux-2.23.2-36.el7 Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-08-01 21:41:11 UTC Type: Bug
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: 1380361, 1381646, 1393867, 1446211    
Attachments:
Description Flags
upstream patch to address buffer overflow. none

Description Ben Woodard 2016-11-08 01:27:25 UTC
Created attachment 1218332 [details]
upstream patch to address buffer overflow.

LLNL was working on util-linux to fix other issues and found that this upstream patch helped deal with a problem that they were having. 

This patch addresses a buffer overflow that could happen and looks right and so it is probably a good idea to pick it up.

Comment 3 Travis Gummels 2017-03-17 15:42:57 UTC
(In reply to Ben Woodard from comment #0)
,,,
> LLNL was working on util-linux to fix other issues and found that this
> upstream patch helped deal with a problem that they were having. 

Ben if you could attach a reproducer or describe how to reproduce the defect so QA can validate the code fix it would be appreciated.  Alternatively if LLNL could validate the fix with a Red Hat built package that would work too.

Thank you,

Travis

Comment 4 Ben Woodard 2017-03-17 15:52:17 UTC
This is an obvious problem which was found through code inspection while searching for another problem. The problem and patch are self evident.

Comment 5 Travis Gummels 2017-03-17 16:17:57 UTC
(In reply to Ben Woodard from comment #4)
> This is an obvious problem which was found through code inspection while
> searching for another problem. The problem and patch are self evident.

I'm confused, you stated in the description:

"... this upstream patch helped deal with a problem that they were having."

That seems to imply that LLNL was experiencing a problem that this patch resolved.  If that is the case it also means LLNL has knowledge on how to reproduce the problem.  Such knowledge could help QA validate that the fix they implemented resolves the problem for the Red Hat built package which could be different than the package LLNL is running.  Not really asking for much here, just a way to reproduce the problem or assistance from LLNL to validate the fix if it isn't something that could be validated here for lack of an HPC environment.

Comment 7 Radka Brychtova 2017-04-20 14:46:47 UTC
Hi,
I am not sure if I can properly test this. 
Do you know about some reproducer or real scenario? Or is the customer able to test this?
If not I will probably do only some sanity testing.

Comment 8 Jim Foraker 2017-04-20 23:42:08 UTC
We have been using a local rebuild of util-linux-2.23.2-33.el7 with this patch applied on our production clusters since mid-October.  Without the patch, we had issues getting our storage nodes to recognize all of their disks on boot.  With the modified util-linux, nodes boot reliably.

Comment 10 errata-xmlrpc 2017-08-01 21:41:11 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017:2186