Bug 677260 - (CVE-2011-0711) CVE-2011-0711 kernel: xfs: prevent leaking uninitialized stack memory in FSGEOMETRY_V1
CVE-2011-0711 kernel: xfs: prevent leaking uninitialized stack memory in FSGE...
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Security Response
Classification: Other
Component: vulnerability (Show other bugs)
unspecified
All Linux
low Severity low
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Red Hat Product Security
public=20110210,reported=20110214,sou...
: Security
Depends On: 677265 677266 677267 677268 677269
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2011-02-14 04:00 EST by Eugene Teo (Security Response)
Modified: 2015-08-19 05:05 EDT (History)
17 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-29 09:50:03 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)

  None (edit)
Description Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2011-02-14 04:00:44 EST
The FSGEOMETRY_V1 ioctl (and its compat equivalent) calls out to
xfs_fs_geometry() with a version number of 3.  This code path does not
fill in the logsunit member of the passed xfs_fsop_geom_t, leading to
the leaking of four bytes of uninitialized stack data to potentially
unprivileged callers.  Since all other members are filled in all code
paths and there are no padding bytes in this structure, it's safe to
avoid an expensive memset() in favor of just clearing this one field.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/546491/

Acknowledgements:

Red Hat would like to thank Dan Rosenberg for reporting this issue.
Comment 3 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2011-02-24 20:05:38 EST
Upstream commit:
http://git.kernel.org/linus/3a3675b7f23f83ca8c67c9c2b6edf707fd28d1ba
Comment 4 Eric Sandeen 2011-03-01 01:55:17 EST
There's a bug in this commit, see "[PATCH] xfs: zero proper structure size for geometry calls" on the xfs list.  But it is probably not going to affect x86_64 due to luck and padding...
Comment 5 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2011-03-01 03:57:11 EST
(In reply to comment #4)
> There's a bug in this commit, see "[PATCH] xfs: zero proper structure size for
> geometry calls" on the xfs list.  But it is probably not going to affect x86_64
> due to luck and padding...

Thanks for the heads-up!

http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg03801.html
Comment 6 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2011-03-01 19:43:15 EST
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > There's a bug in this commit, see "[PATCH] xfs: zero proper structure size for
> > geometry calls" on the xfs list.  But it is probably not going to affect x86_64
> > due to luck and padding...
> 
> Thanks for the heads-up!
> 
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg03801.html

Version 3. http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg03806.html
Comment 8 John Kacur 2011-03-08 03:48:48 EST
If I understand this correctly then, both commits are needed.
3a3675b7f23f83ca8c67c9c2b6edf707fd28d1ba
and
af24ee9ea8d532e16883251a6684dfa1be8eec29

Is this correct?
Comment 9 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2011-03-08 04:19:25 EST
(In reply to comment #8)
> If I understand this correctly then, both commits are needed.
> 3a3675b7f23f83ca8c67c9c2b6edf707fd28d1ba
> and
> af24ee9ea8d532e16883251a6684dfa1be8eec29
> 
> Is this correct?

That is correct.
Comment 10 Eric Sandeen 2011-03-10 11:27:42 EST
Due to padding on 64-bit arches, rhel may actually be fine, since we only ship xfs with x86_64.

Nothing wrong with including the 2nd patch but if it causes lots of last-minute exception work, we may be ok without it.
Comment 11 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2011-03-10 23:56:45 EST
(In reply to comment #10)
> Due to padding on 64-bit arches, rhel may actually be fine, since we only ship
> xfs with x86_64.
> 
> Nothing wrong with including the 2nd patch but if it causes lots of last-minute
> exception work, we may be ok without it.

We ship XFS on the real-time kernel on both x86 and x86_64.
Comment 12 Eugene Teo (Security Response) 2011-03-11 01:15:51 EST
Statement:

This issue did not affect the version of Linux kernel as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 as it did not have support for the XFS file system. This has been addressed in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, 6, and Red Hat Enterprise
MRG via https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0927.html, https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0498.html, and https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0500.html.
Comment 13 errata-xmlrpc 2011-05-10 13:20:22 EDT
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  MRG for RHEL-5

Via RHSA-2011:0500 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0500.html
Comment 14 errata-xmlrpc 2011-05-10 14:11:33 EDT
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6

Via RHSA-2011:0498 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0498.html
Comment 15 errata-xmlrpc 2011-07-15 02:08:52 EDT
This issue has been addressed in following products:

  Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5

Via RHSA-2011:0927 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0927.html

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