From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sun Jan 31 15:25:52 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4FDA4F9B75 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:25:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.netfence.it (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mailserver.netfence.it", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DTFJv4n9bz3jk5 for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:25:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from alamar.ventu (alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by soth.netfence.it (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 10VFPh8m037916 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 31 Jan 2021 16:25:43 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) X-Authentication-Warning: soth.netfence.it: Host alamar.local.netfence.it [10.1.2.18] claimed to be alamar.ventu Subject: Re: [FreeBSD-Announce] FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-21:01.fsdisclosure To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org References: <20210129022826.C82C91DB44@freefall.freebsd.org> From: Andrea Venturoli Message-ID: <15879d07-6563-f762-c93c-cf91c9516ce7@netfence.it> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 16:25:43 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DTFJv4n9bz3jk5 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=netfence.it; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ml@netfence.it designates 78.134.96.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ml@netfence.it X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.77 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[78.134.96.152:from]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:78.134.96.152]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[78.134.96.152:from:127.0.2.255]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-security@freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[netfence.it,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.973]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:35612, ipnet:78.134.0.0/17, country:IT]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-security] X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2021 15:25:52 -0000 On 1/31/21 12:29 PM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> Several file systems were not properly initializing the d_off field of >> the dirent structures returned by VOP_READDIR.  In particular, tmpfs(5), >> smbfs(5), autofs(5) and mqueuefs(5) were failing to do so.  As a result, >> eight uninitialized kernel stack bytes may be leaked to userspace by >> these file systems.  This problem is not present in FreeBSD 11. > > There is a Corrected in: stable/11, 11.4-STABLE and releng/11.4, > 11.4-RELEASE-p7, but later is a statement "This problem is not present > in FreeBSD 11". > What is true? Is it fixed in newer patchlevel of FreeBSD 11.4 or it was > not present in 11.x at all? My understanding is that the problem described in that paragraph does not affect 11.x, but the next one does (and is "Corrected..."). I.e. 11.x is affected by: > Additionally, msdosfs(5) was failing to zero-fill a pair of padding > fields in the dirent structure, resulting in a leak of three > uninitialized bytes. Is that right? bye av.