|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | VUL-0: CVE-2021-47121: kernel: net: caif: memory leak in cfusbl_device_notify() | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Novell Products] SUSE Security Incidents | Reporter: | SMASH SMASH <smash_bz> |
| Component: | Incidents | Assignee: | Security Team bot <security-team> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | QA Contact: | Security Team bot <security-team> |
| Severity: | Normal | ||
| Priority: | P3 - Medium | CC: | carlos.lopez, mhocko, osalvador |
| Version: | unspecified | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Other | ||
| OS: | Other | ||
| URL: | https://smash.suse.de/issue/397855/ | ||
| Whiteboard: | CVSSv3.1:SUSE:CVE-2021-47121:4.7:(AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H) | ||
| Found By: | Security Response Team | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
|
Description
SMASH SMASH
2024-03-18 07:12:59 UTC
master: Already Fixed
stable: Already Fixed
SLE15-SP6: Already Fixed
ALP-current: Already Fixed
cve/linux-5.14: Already Fixed
SLE15-SP5: Already Fixed
SLE15-SP4-LTSS: Already Fixed
cve/linux-5.3: Not Affected (CONFIG_CAIF_USB disabled)
SLE15-SP3-LTSS: Affected
SLE15-SP2-LTSS: Not Affected (CONFIG_CAIF_USB disabled)
cve/linux-4.12: Not Affected (CONFIG_CAIF_USB disabled)
SLE12-SP5: Not Affected (CONFIG_CAIF_USB disabled)
cve/linux-4.4: Not Affected (CONFIG_CAIF_USB disabled)
SLE12-SP3-LTSS: Not Affected (CONFIG_CAIF_USB disabled)
SLE12-SP2-LTSS: Not Affected (CONFIG_CAIF_USB disabled)
cve/linux-3.0: Not Affected
SLE11-SP4-LTSS: Not Affected
caif_enroll_dev can fail when caif_device_alloc fails to allocate caif_device_entry (GFP_KERNEL small allocation) or alloc_percpu(int) fails, neither of which is a feasible attack vector to leak memory. Another is cfcnfg_add_phy_layer failing which would be when "Too many CAIF Link Layers (max 6)" which I cannot really assess. Is this a feasible vector? Then we have GFP_ATOMIC allocation for cfcnfg_phyinfo. This could be a potential vector. Btw. This should likely be GFP_KERNEL request because this is called from under a mutex so there is no real need for GFP_ATOMIC. Same holds for cffrml_create. Nothing to do, closing. |