[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160905135748.GA11745@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:57:48 +0200
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: cve-assign@...re.org
Subject: Re: CVE request: Linux kernel mbcache lock contention
denial of service.
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 03:28:51PM +1000, Wade Mealing wrote:
> Gday,
>
> A design flaw was found in the file extended attribute handling of the
> linux kernels handling of cached attributes. Too many entries in the
> cache cause a soft lockup while attempting to iterate the cache and
> access relevant locks.
>
> Upstream has replaced the mbcache code with an updated version which
> was not a patch but a clear-cut reimplementation of the code, no
> single diff
>
> Soft lockup information is in both the bugzilla.kernel.org and
> referred to in the LWN article. This would affect containers running
> with ext4 as it shares the same mbcache between all containers/host.
>
> This did not affect Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions 5,6 or 7, so I
> can't validate the claim that it does affect other newer kernels.
> This may be worthwhile tracking for others who are affected by this
> flaw.
>
> For those following along at home, this seemed to be fixed in:
>
> ± git tag --contains be0726d33cb8f411945884664924bed3cb8c70ee
> v4.6
That commit is for only the ext2 filesystem, how would it fix an issue
in ext4?
totally confused,
greg k-h
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.
