[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87vbccpxz0.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2015 14:44:51 +0200
From: Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE Request for glusterfs: fuse check return value of setuid
* Siddharth Sharma:
> Problem description from the bug:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254488
>
> setuid() sets the effective user ID of the calling process.
> If the effective UID of the caller is root, the real UID and
> saved set-user-ID are also set. On success, zero is returned.
> On error, -1 is returned, and errno is set appropriately.
>
> Note: there are cases where setuid() can fail even when the
> caller is UID 0; it is a grave security error to omit checking
> for a failure return from setuid(). if an environment limits
> the number of processes a user can have, setuid() might fail if
> the target uid already is at the limit.
>
> Can we have CVE assigned to this ?
>
> Upstream Ref:
>
> http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10780/
> https://github.com/gluster/glusterfs/commit/b5ceb1a9de9af563b0f91e2a3138fa5a95cad9f6
Original code:
<http://sourceforge.net/p/fuse/fuse/ci/master/tree/lib/mount_util.c#l103>
Pluse two more locations in that file.
A single CVE ID for all these issues should probably suffice.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
