Описание
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfrm: validate new SA's prefixlen using SA family when sel.family is unset This expands the validation introduced in commit 07bf7908950a ("xfrm: Validate address prefix lengths in the xfrm selector.") syzbot created an SA with usersa.sel.family = AF_UNSPEC usersa.sel.prefixlen_s = 128 usersa.family = AF_INET Because of the AF_UNSPEC selector, verify_newsa_info doesn't put limits on prefixlen_{s,d}. But then copy_from_user_state sets x->sel.family to usersa.family (AF_INET). Do the same conversion in verify_newsa_info before validating prefixlen_{s,d}, since that's how prefixlen is going to be used later on.
Пакеты
| Пакет | Статус | Версия исправления | Релиз | Тип |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| linux | fixed | 6.11.6-1 | package | |
| linux | fixed | 6.1.115-1 | bookworm | package |
Примечания
https://git.kernel.org/linus/3f0ab59e6537c6a8f9e1b355b48f9c05a76e8563 (6.12-rc5)
Связанные уязвимости
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfrm: validate new SA's prefixlen using SA family when sel.family is unset This expands the validation introduced in commit 07bf7908950a ("xfrm: Validate address prefix lengths in the xfrm selector.") syzbot created an SA with usersa.sel.family = AF_UNSPEC usersa.sel.prefixlen_s = 128 usersa.family = AF_INET Because of the AF_UNSPEC selector, verify_newsa_info doesn't put limits on prefixlen_{s,d}. But then copy_from_user_state sets x->sel.family to usersa.family (AF_INET). Do the same conversion in verify_newsa_info before validating prefixlen_{s,d}, since that's how prefixlen is going to be used later on.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfrm: validate new SA's prefixlen using SA family when sel.family is unset This expands the validation introduced in commit 07bf7908950a ("xfrm: Validate address prefix lengths in the xfrm selector.") syzbot created an SA with usersa.sel.family = AF_UNSPEC usersa.sel.prefixlen_s = 128 usersa.family = AF_INET Because of the AF_UNSPEC selector, verify_newsa_info doesn't put limits on prefixlen_{s,d}. But then copy_from_user_state sets x->sel.family to usersa.family (AF_INET). Do the same conversion in verify_newsa_info before validating prefixlen_{s,d}, since that's how prefixlen is going to be used later on.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfrm: validate new SA's prefixlen using SA family when sel.family is unset This expands the validation introduced in commit 07bf7908950a ("xfrm: Validate address prefix lengths in the xfrm selector.") syzbot created an SA with usersa.sel.family = AF_UNSPEC usersa.sel.prefixlen_s = 128 usersa.family = AF_INET Because of the AF_UNSPEC selector, verify_newsa_info doesn't put limits on prefixlen_{s,d}. But then copy_from_user_state sets x->sel.family to usersa.family (AF_INET). Do the same conversion in verify_newsa_info before validating prefixlen_{s,d}, since that's how prefixlen is going to be used later on.
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: xfrm: validate new SA's prefixlen using SA family when sel.family is unset This expands the validation introduced in commit 07bf7908950a ("xfrm: Validate address prefix lengths in the xfrm selector.") syzbot created an SA with usersa.sel.family = AF_UNSPEC usersa.sel.prefixlen_s = 128 usersa.family = AF_INET Because of the AF_UNSPEC selector, verify_newsa_info doesn't put limits on prefixlen_{s,d}. But then copy_from_user_state sets x->sel.family to usersa.family (AF_INET). Do the same conversion in verify_newsa_info before validating prefixlen_{s,d}, since that's how prefixlen is going to be used later on.