Bug 504726 - (CVE-2009-1389) CVE-2009-1389 kernel: r8169: fix crash when large packets are received
CVE-2009-1389 kernel: r8169: fix crash when large packets are received
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability (Show other bugs)
unspecified
All Linux
high Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Red Hat Product Security
public=20090214,reported=20090609,sou...
: Security
Depends On: 504727 504728 504729 504730 504731 504732 518224 520007
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-06-08 22:43 EDT by Eugene Teo (Security Response)
Modified: 2016-06-10 18:29 EDT (History)
10 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-06-10 18:29:51 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)
backtraces (86.98 KB, image/jpeg)
2009-06-08 22:43 EDT, Eugene Teo (Security Response)
no flags Details

  None (edit)
Description Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2009-06-08 22:43:13 EDT
Created attachment 346959 [details]
backtraces

Description of problem:
Michael Tokarev reported receiving a large packet could crash a machine with RTL8169 NIC.

Problem is this driver tells that NIC frames up to 16383 bytes can be received but provides skb to rx ring allocated with smaller sizes (1536 bytes in case standard 1500 bytes MTU is used)

When a frame larger than what was allocated by driver is received, dma transfert can occurs past the end of buffer and corrupt kernel memory.

Fix is to tell to NIC what is the maximum size a frame can be.

References:
http://marc.info/?t=123462473200002
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/8/194
http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/r8169-mtu-oops.jpg
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/130114
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-kernel@lists.debian.org/msg45651.html
Comment 3 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2009-06-08 23:14:32 EDT
Proposed patch:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/130114
Comment 4 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2009-06-10 01:23:18 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> Proposed patch:
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/130114  

Upstream commit: http://git.kernel.org/linus/fdd7b4c3302c93f6833e338903ea77245eb510b4 (v2.6.30)
Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2009-06-18 18:08:08 EDT
kernel-2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kernel-2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9
Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2009-06-22 07:59:34 EDT
kernel-2.6.27.25-170.2.72.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kernel-2.6.27.25-170.2.72.fc10
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2009-06-24 15:18:07 EDT
kernel-2.6.27.25-170.2.72.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2009-06-24 15:23:09 EDT
kernel-2.6.29.5-191.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2009-06-24 15:35:29 EDT
kernel-2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 10 Manfred Knick 2009-06-25 07:04:02 EDT
(In reply to comment #8)

> kernel-2.6.29.5-191.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. 
> If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.  

  Yes; reported at:

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460747#c99
Comment 11 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2009-06-25 08:19:23 EDT
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #8)
> 
> > kernel-2.6.29.5-191.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. 
> > If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.  
> 
>   Yes; reported at:
> 
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460747#c99  

Manfred, it looks like a different problem as reported in bug 460747. Thanks.
Comment 12 Manfred Knick 2009-06-25 09:08:08 EDT
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > (In reply to comment #8)

> .. looks like a different problem as reported in bug 460747 ...

Sure; just meant as a cross-reference.

From the diversity of bug reports in all the smitten kernel and distro's reporting systems, I've got the impression that R. have ejected quite a diversity of HW/FW (en detail) under the same-looking label ;)
Comment 13 errata-xmlrpc 2009-07-14 15:11:16 EDT
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  MRG for RHEL-5

Via RHSA-2009:1157 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1157.html
Comment 15 errata-xmlrpc 2009-08-04 09:15:30 EDT
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

Via RHSA-2009:1193 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1193.html
Comment 16 errata-xmlrpc 2009-08-13 11:35:05 EDT
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4

Via RHSA-2009:1211 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1211.html
Comment 18 errata-xmlrpc 2009-09-22 10:57:51 EDT
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.2 Z Stream

Via RHSA-2009:1457 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1457.html
Comment 19 errata-xmlrpc 2009-09-30 10:58:41 EDT
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.7 Z Stream

Via RHSA-2009:1469 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1469.html

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.