Is CVE-2024-26624 a valid issue?

Is CVE-2024-26624 a valid issue?

[Ben Hutchings]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 439 bytes --]

Hi Eric,

I noted that CVE-2024-26624 was assigned by the kernel CVE authority to
the issue fixed by commit 4d322dce82a1 "af_unix: fix lockdep positive
in sk_diag_dump_icons()".  By my understanding, this does not fix any
locking bug, but only a false positive report from lockdep.  Do you
consider this a security issue?

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Time is nature's way of making sure that
everything doesn't happen at once.


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Is CVE-2024-26624 a valid issue?

[Eric Dumazet]

Hi Ben

Yes, my understanding of the issue is that it is a false positive.

Some kernels might crash whenever LOCKDEP triggers, as for any WARNing.

Thanks.

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 1:02 AM Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> I noted that CVE-2024-26624 was assigned by the kernel CVE authority to
> the issue fixed by commit 4d322dce82a1 "af_unix: fix lockdep positive
> in sk_diag_dump_icons()".  By my understanding, this does not fix any
> locking bug, but only a false positive report from lockdep.  Do you
> consider this a security issue?
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Time is nature's way of making sure that
> everything doesn't happen at once.
>

Re: Is CVE-2024-26624 a valid issue?

[Lee Jones]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> Hi Ben
> 
> Yes, my understanding of the issue is that it is a false positive.
> 
> Some kernels might crash whenever LOCKDEP triggers, as for any WARNing.

Exactly.  So is it possible to trip this, false positive or otherwise?
Being able to crash the kernel, even under false pretences, is
definitely something we usually provide CVE allocations for.

> > I noted that CVE-2024-26624 was assigned by the kernel CVE authority to
> > the issue fixed by commit 4d322dce82a1 "af_unix: fix lockdep positive
> > in sk_diag_dump_icons()".  By my understanding, this does not fix any
> > locking bug, but only a false positive report from lockdep.  Do you
> > consider this a security issue?
> >
> > Ben.
> >
> > --
> > Ben Hutchings
> > Time is nature's way of making sure that
> > everything doesn't happen at once.
> >
> 

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]

Re: Is CVE-2024-26624 a valid issue?

[Greg KH]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2024 at 02:00:43PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2024, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ben
> > 
> > Yes, my understanding of the issue is that it is a false positive.
> > 
> > Some kernels might crash whenever LOCKDEP triggers, as for any WARNing.
> 
> Exactly.  So is it possible to trip this, false positive or otherwise?
> Being able to crash the kernel, even under false pretences, is
> definitely something we usually provide CVE allocations for.

lockdep warnings do not trigger a reboot for panic-on-warn, so I'll go
reject this cve, thanks.

greg k-h