Re: Fwd: [PATCH][SMB3 client] fix TCP timers deadlock after rmmod

On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 05:15:44PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 02, 2025 at 12:49:50PM +0800, Wang Zhaolong wrote:
> > > Yes, it seems the previous description might not have been entirely clear.
> > > I need to clearly point out that this patch, intended as the fix for CVE-2024-54680,
> > > does not actually address any real issues. It also fails to resolve the null pointer
> > > dereference problem within lockdep. On top of that, it has caused a series of
> > > subsequent leakage issues.
> > 
> > If this cve does not actually fix anything, then we can easily reject
> > it, please just let us know if that needs to happen here.
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > greg k-h
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Yes, I can confirm that the patch for CVE-2024-54680 (commit e9f2517a3e18)
> should be rejected. Our analysis shows:
> 
> 1. It fails to address the actual null pointer dereference in lockdep
> 
> 2. It introduces multiple serious issues:
>    1. A socket leak vulnerability as documented in bugzilla #219972
>    2. Network namespace refcount imbalance issues as described in
>      bugzilla #219792 (which required the follow-up mainline fix
>      4e7f1644f2ac "smb: client: Fix netns refcount imbalance
>      causing leaks and use-after-free")
> 
> The next thing we should probably do is:
>    - Reverting e9f2517a3e18
>    - Reverting the follow-up fix 4e7f1644f2ac, as it's trying to fix
>      problems introduced by the problematic CVE patch

Great, can you please send patches now for both of these so we can
backport them to the stable kernels properly?

>    - Addressing the original lockdep issue properly (Kuniyuki is working
>      on a module ownership tracking patch, though it hasn't been merged yet)
> 
> Regardless of the status of Kuniyuki's lockdep fix, the CVE patch itself
> is fundamentally flawed and should be rejected as it creates more problems
> than it solves.

Ok, I'll go reject that now, thanks.

greg k-h