Bug 1164218
| Summary: | glfs_set_volfile_server() method causes segmentation fault when bad arguments are passed. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Community] GlusterFS | Reporter: | Darshan <dnarayan> |
| Component: | libgfapi | Assignee: | Vijay Bellur <vbellur> |
| Status: | CLOSED WORKSFORME | QA Contact: | storage-qa-internal <storage-qa-internal> |
| Severity: | urgent | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | mainline | CC: | atumball, bugs, bugs, daniel.guettes, danken, lsurette, mgoldboi, penguin.wrangler, s.kieske, srevivo, vbellur, ykaul |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Triaged |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | glusterfs-6.x | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | 1162640 | Environment: | |
| Last Closed: | 2019-05-11 00:35:38 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: | |||
|
Description
Darshan
2014-11-14 11:32:05 UTC
The arguments passed to set_vol_file_server() has to be verified, If arguments are not as expected then function should return with a proper return code. I think this is a security issue and should get a CVE assigned by Red Hat. REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/9128 (api: Perform input validation in all functions.) posted (#1) for review on master by Vijay Bellur (vbellur) REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/9128 (api: Perform input validation in all functions.) posted (#2) for review on master by Vijay Bellur (vbellur) (In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #2) > I think this is a security issue and should get a CVE assigned by Red Hat. At a quick glance, this doesn't seem to be user-triggerable is it? I think that is what would define whether or not this is a security issue. If an unprivileged user can in some way pass some input to cause this scenario to happen (perhaps some user can add metadata to a glusterfs volume that causes this?) then it would be considered a security issue. While the impact is pretty bad, I'm not sure it's a security issue. For instance, a bug in a kernel driver that causes the kernel to panic at random times isn't a security issue even though it takes the entire system down. It needs a way of crossing a trust boundary, so if an unprivileged user can cause this then it is a problem, but if an administrator on the host can make (whatever) changes to a glusterfs volume and can _also_ turn off virtual machines then there is no gain to them as they can already DoS those virtual machines to begin with. Does that make sense? I'm not familiar enough with glusterfs to know for certain which is the case here so if you can provide some input in that regard, then I can definitely let you know whether this is a pretty bad operational bug, or in fact a security issue. Can anyone provide any input to the above that would perhaps clarify? (In reply to Vincent Danen from comment #5) > (In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #2) > > I think this is a security issue and should get a CVE assigned by Red Hat. > > At a quick glance, this doesn't seem to be user-triggerable is it? > > Can anyone provide any input to the above that would perhaps clarify? While we have not determined a root cause to the failure in bz#1162640, we have a patch that mitigates the segfault. That being said, it never felt like a security issue to me. I am not aware of any unprivileged user-input that could cause this. (In reply to Ian Morgan from comment #6) > (In reply to Vincent Danen from comment #5) > > (In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #2) > > > I think this is a security issue and should get a CVE assigned by Red Hat. > > > > At a quick glance, this doesn't seem to be user-triggerable is it? > > > > Can anyone provide any input to the above that would perhaps clarify? > > While we have not determined a root cause to the failure in bz#1162640, we > have a patch that mitigates the segfault. That being said, it never felt > like a security issue to me. I am not aware of any unprivileged user-input > that could cause this. Thanks for the clarification. I just assumed users could craft these bad arguments in some way or another. (In reply to Ian Morgan from comment #6) > (In reply to Vincent Danen from comment #5) > > (In reply to Sven Kieske from comment #2) > > > I think this is a security issue and should get a CVE assigned by Red Hat. > > > > At a quick glance, this doesn't seem to be user-triggerable is it? > > > > Can anyone provide any input to the above that would perhaps clarify? > > While we have not determined a root cause to the failure in bz#1162640, we > have a patch that mitigates the segfault. That being said, it never felt > like a security issue to me. I am not aware of any unprivileged user-input > that could cause this. Perfect, thank you for this, Ian. We'll leave it as-is then. It did not seem like a security issue to me either. REVIEW: http://review.gluster.org/9128 (api: Perform input validation in all functions.) posted (#3) for review on master by Vijay Bellur (vbellur) This bug was accidentally moved from POST to MODIFIED via an error in automation, please see mmccune with any questions I believe this bug was fixed a long time ago, and can be closed. with glusterfs-6.x series. |