From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 0BA0F3858D39; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 15:00:55 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 0BA0F3858D39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1675782056; bh=CIlZOjGvWLJUi1jLItvdfwgO8ROJjuj0kDPdzQapJHM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=N6D9FetNA6Dn1tWKO60QjSuZklz8h3W/sKgcVoDCVI43H2kAg326asygXxB1KtumP vmXGhK1ypzaVZm8UqSQA89kvpjZesRtxHyoDVPhDHfZM00k5L5sKgDuvsYZKRM5V0x bwDvtR6IMCnlbNDXVLZb8RTQX8vLNHey8hSVvXck= From: "siddhesh at sourceware dot org" To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug libc/29444] gmon memory corruption due wrong calculation of required buffer size Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2023 15:00:55 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: libc X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.38 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: minor X-Bugzilla-Who: siddhesh at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: security- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc flagtypes.name Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29444 Siddhesh Poyarekar changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |siddhesh at sourceware dot= org Flags| |security- --- Comment #11 from Siddhesh Poyarekar --- The only way to induce this buffer overflow is to modify the callgraph of an application that is built with these options(In reply to Leo Yuriev from comment #10) > (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #9) > > (In reply to Ismail Donmez from comment #8) > > > Will the glibc maintainers reject the assigned CVE? I don't see how t= his is > > > exploitable. > >=20 > > Agreed. I expect us to file a DISPUTE request with MITRE later today. >=20 > Yes, it is not exploitable in usual/common cases. >=20 > However, this bug can be exploited in rare specific scenarios when > monstartup() and moncontrol() are called explicitly to collect statistics > from a part of modules compiled with the corresponding options (nonethele= ss, > I cannot disclose information about affected software either show the > exploit). The inputs that induce this buffer overflow are basically addresses of the running application that is built with gmon enabled *and* with the patch for bug 29438, so it's basically trusted input or input that needs an actual security flaw to be compromised or controlled. The bug needs to be fixed, = but there's no security issue here. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=