Hello Sasha and Greg!
Last week I sent request for backporting ath9k wifi fixes for security issue CVE-2020-3702 into stable LTS kernels because Qualcomm/maintainers did not it for more months... details are in email: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210818084859.vcs4vs3yd6zetmyt@pali/t/#u
And now I got reports that in stable LTS kernels (4.14, 4.19) are missing also other fixes for other Qualcomm wifi security issues, covered by FragAttacks codename: CVE-2020-26145 CVE-2020-26139 CVE-2020-26141
People have already asked if somebody is already doing backports to 4.19 of patches for these security issues, but there was no response, see email: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/704e1c77-6c48-79f7-043a-b2d03fbfef8b@...
I got information that issues for ath10k are again going to be (or are already?) fixed in some vendor custom/fork kernels, but not in official stable tree 4.14/4.19 (yet).
This situation is really bad because lot of times I hear to use mainline kernel versions or official stable LTS tree (which are maintained by you), but due to such security issues in LTS trees which stays unfixed and others say to use rather vendor custom/fork kernels where it is claimed that issues are fixed.
And because there is no statement for end users (end users do not communicate with vendors and so they do not have information what is supported and what not), end users just use what Linux open source distributions have in their kernels (which lot of times match official LTS kernel trees). And users think that everything is OK and security issues are fixed.
So there is really a need for public statement from you or Qualcomm side, if stable LTS kernel trees are going to include security fixes for drivers used by Qualcomm wifi chips (ath*k) or not or under which conditions. And what should users / Linux distributions use if they do not want to have years-old unpatched drivers with security issues. Such information is really important also for distributions which include unmodified (or slightly modified) kernel LTS trees into their own packages. As they also need to know from which source should take (e.g. Qualcomm wifi) drivers for their systems to ensure that have security patches applied.
I can understand that you or other people or volunteers do not have time to track or maintain some parts of drivers. So nothing wrong if official statement is that stable trees X and Y do not receive security updates for driver A and B anymore. Also I can understand that it takes some time to include required fixes, so expect fixes for A and B in X and Y versions with one month delay. But it is needed to know what should people expect from LTS trees for particular drivers. Because I think it is not currently clear...
Do not take me wrong, I just wanted to show that this is hidden problem which needs some discussion.
On 8/23/21 7:08 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
Hello Sasha and Greg!
Last week I sent request for backporting ath9k wifi fixes for security issue CVE-2020-3702 into stable LTS kernels because Qualcomm/maintainers did not it for more months... details are in email: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210818084859.vcs4vs3yd6zetmyt@pali/t/#u
For one thing, almost everyone using these radios is using openwrt or similar which has its own patch sets.
So, it is good to have the patches backported to real kernels, but also, for actual users of these, it matters more what openwrt has done...
Thanks, Ben
And now I got reports that in stable LTS kernels (4.14, 4.19) are missing also other fixes for other Qualcomm wifi security issues, covered by FragAttacks codename: CVE-2020-26145 CVE-2020-26139 CVE-2020-26141
People have already asked if somebody is already doing backports to 4.19 of patches for these security issues, but there was no response, see email: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/704e1c77-6c48-79f7-043a-b2d03fbfef8b@...
I got information that issues for ath10k are again going to be (or are already?) fixed in some vendor custom/fork kernels, but not in official stable tree 4.14/4.19 (yet).
This situation is really bad because lot of times I hear to use mainline kernel versions or official stable LTS tree (which are maintained by you), but due to such security issues in LTS trees which stays unfixed and others say to use rather vendor custom/fork kernels where it is claimed that issues are fixed.
And because there is no statement for end users (end users do not communicate with vendors and so they do not have information what is supported and what not), end users just use what Linux open source distributions have in their kernels (which lot of times match official LTS kernel trees). And users think that everything is OK and security issues are fixed.
So there is really a need for public statement from you or Qualcomm side, if stable LTS kernel trees are going to include security fixes for drivers used by Qualcomm wifi chips (ath*k) or not or under which conditions. And what should users / Linux distributions use if they do not want to have years-old unpatched drivers with security issues. Such information is really important also for distributions which include unmodified (or slightly modified) kernel LTS trees into their own packages. As they also need to know from which source should take (e.g. Qualcomm wifi) drivers for their systems to ensure that have security patches applied.
I can understand that you or other people or volunteers do not have time to track or maintain some parts of drivers. So nothing wrong if official statement is that stable trees X and Y do not receive security updates for driver A and B anymore. Also I can understand that it takes some time to include required fixes, so expect fixes for A and B in X and Y versions with one month delay. But it is needed to know what should people expect from LTS trees for particular drivers. Because I think it is not currently clear...
Do not take me wrong, I just wanted to show that this is hidden problem which needs some discussion.
Hi Ben,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 12:37 AM Ben Greear greearb@candelatech.com wrote:
On 8/23/21 7:08 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
Hello Sasha and Greg!
Last week I sent request for backporting ath9k wifi fixes for security issue CVE-2020-3702 into stable LTS kernels because Qualcomm/maintainers did not it for more months... details are in email: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210818084859.vcs4vs3yd6zetmyt@pali/t/#u
For one thing, almost everyone using these radios is using openwrt or similar which has its own patch sets.
For reference, according to Debian's own security tracker, only CVE-2020-26139 is patched on all but the most ancient tracked release:
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2020-26139 (fixed in all but the most ancient release) https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2020-3702 (all tracked kernels are vulnerable) https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2020-26145 (only testing/unstable is fixed) https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2020-26141 (only testing/unstable is fixed)
Debian Buster has a 4.19 kernel and they only released Bullseye, it's successor, a couple of weeks ago, so there's probably a not-insignificant number of PCs out there still running kernels that old, and I understand that they'll be supporting Buster with security fixes for approximately another year: https://www.debian.org/security/faq#lifespan
Thanks,
On Monday 23 August 2021 07:32:11 Ben Greear wrote:
On 8/23/21 7:08 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
Hello Sasha and Greg!
Last week I sent request for backporting ath9k wifi fixes for security issue CVE-2020-3702 into stable LTS kernels because Qualcomm/maintainers did not it for more months... details are in email: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210818084859.vcs4vs3yd6zetmyt@pali/t/#u
For one thing, almost everyone using these radios is using openwrt or similar which has its own patch sets.
AFAIK, latest stable released openwrt uses ath9k from 4.19 tree and AFAIK did not have above patch.
So, it is good to have the patches backported to real kernels, but also, for actual users of these, it matters more what openwrt has done...
ath9k and ath10k wifi cards are widely used not only in wifi routers (as access points) but also in laptops (as clients). These chips are available on more (noname / laptop vendor branded) cards so are popular also outside of openwrt market. Maybe people even do not know that their wifi card in laptop has one of these Qualcomm chips.
Thanks, Ben
And now I got reports that in stable LTS kernels (4.14, 4.19) are missing also other fixes for other Qualcomm wifi security issues, covered by FragAttacks codename: CVE-2020-26145 CVE-2020-26139 CVE-2020-26141
People have already asked if somebody is already doing backports to 4.19 of patches for these security issues, but there was no response, see email: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/704e1c77-6c48-79f7-043a-b2d03fbfef8b@...
I got information that issues for ath10k are again going to be (or are already?) fixed in some vendor custom/fork kernels, but not in official stable tree 4.14/4.19 (yet).
This situation is really bad because lot of times I hear to use mainline kernel versions or official stable LTS tree (which are maintained by you), but due to such security issues in LTS trees which stays unfixed and others say to use rather vendor custom/fork kernels where it is claimed that issues are fixed.
And because there is no statement for end users (end users do not communicate with vendors and so they do not have information what is supported and what not), end users just use what Linux open source distributions have in their kernels (which lot of times match official LTS kernel trees). And users think that everything is OK and security issues are fixed.
So there is really a need for public statement from you or Qualcomm side, if stable LTS kernel trees are going to include security fixes for drivers used by Qualcomm wifi chips (ath*k) or not or under which conditions. And what should users / Linux distributions use if they do not want to have years-old unpatched drivers with security issues. Such information is really important also for distributions which include unmodified (or slightly modified) kernel LTS trees into their own packages. As they also need to know from which source should take (e.g. Qualcomm wifi) drivers for their systems to ensure that have security patches applied.
I can understand that you or other people or volunteers do not have time to track or maintain some parts of drivers. So nothing wrong if official statement is that stable trees X and Y do not receive security updates for driver A and B anymore. Also I can understand that it takes some time to include required fixes, so expect fixes for A and B in X and Y versions with one month delay. But it is needed to know what should people expect from LTS trees for particular drivers. Because I think it is not currently clear...
Do not take me wrong, I just wanted to show that this is hidden problem which needs some discussion.
-- Ben Greear greearb@candelatech.com Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
Hi Pali,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 3:58 PM Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote:
On Monday 23 August 2021 07:32:11 Ben Greear wrote:
On 8/23/21 7:08 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
Hello Sasha and Greg!
Last week I sent request for backporting ath9k wifi fixes for security issue CVE-2020-3702 into stable LTS kernels because Qualcomm/maintainers did not it for more months... details are in email: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210818084859.vcs4vs3yd6zetmyt@pali/t/#u
For one thing, almost everyone using these radios is using openwrt or similar which has its own patch sets.
AFAIK, latest stable released openwrt uses ath9k from 4.19 tree and AFAIK did not have above patch.
I think you asked for the following patches:
56c5485c9e44 ("ath: Use safer key clearing with key cache entries") 73488cb2fa3b ("ath9k: Clear key cache explicitly on disabling hardware") d2d3e36498dd ("ath: Export ath_hw_keysetmac()") 144cd24dbc36 ("ath: Modify ath_key_delete() to not need full key entry") ca2848022c12 ("ath9k: Postpone key cache entry deletion for TXQ frames reference it")
And I can see they are already in the queue for next v4.19.y release, so should be part of v4.19.205
On Monday 23 August 2021 20:26:37 Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
Hi Pali,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 3:58 PM Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote:
On Monday 23 August 2021 07:32:11 Ben Greear wrote:
On 8/23/21 7:08 AM, Pali Rohár wrote:
Hello Sasha and Greg!
Last week I sent request for backporting ath9k wifi fixes for security issue CVE-2020-3702 into stable LTS kernels because Qualcomm/maintainers did not it for more months... details are in email: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210818084859.vcs4vs3yd6zetmyt@pali/t/#u
For one thing, almost everyone using these radios is using openwrt or similar which has its own patch sets.
AFAIK, latest stable released openwrt uses ath9k from 4.19 tree and AFAIK did not have above patch.
And I can see they are already in the queue for next v4.19.y release, so should be part of v4.19.205
Yes, I expect it. My point was that these patches were not available in openwrt's custom patch sets about which Ben talked.
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 04:08:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
Hello Sasha and Greg!
Last week I sent request for backporting ath9k wifi fixes for security issue CVE-2020-3702 into stable LTS kernels because Qualcomm/maintainers did not it for more months... details are in email: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210818084859.vcs4vs3yd6zetmyt@pali/t/#u
And now I got reports that in stable LTS kernels (4.14, 4.19) are missing also other fixes for other Qualcomm wifi security issues, covered by FragAttacks codename: CVE-2020-26145 CVE-2020-26139 CVE-2020-26141
Then someone needs to provide us backports if they care about these very old kernels and these issues. Just like any other driver subsystem where patches are not able to be easily backported.
Or just use a newer kernel, that's almost always a better idea.
thanks,
greg k-h
Greg KH gregkh@linuxfoundation.org writes:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 04:08:44PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
Hello Sasha and Greg!
Last week I sent request for backporting ath9k wifi fixes for security issue CVE-2020-3702 into stable LTS kernels because Qualcomm/maintainers did not it for more months... details are in email: https://lore.kernel.org/stable/20210818084859.vcs4vs3yd6zetmyt@pali/t/#u
And now I got reports that in stable LTS kernels (4.14, 4.19) are missing also other fixes for other Qualcomm wifi security issues, covered by FragAttacks codename: CVE-2020-26145 CVE-2020-26139 CVE-2020-26141
Then someone needs to provide us backports if they care about these very old kernels and these issues. Just like any other driver subsystem where patches are not able to be easily backported.
Or just use a newer kernel, that's almost always a better idea.
Sorry for the delay in my answer. But like Greg said, use of a newer kernel is the best option. I don't have the bandwith to maintain ath[1] drivers in stable releases, but I do try to make sure bugfixes have a Fixes tag when approriate and I do add cc stable whenever people ask me to. That's about it from stable releases point of view, my focus is on Linus' releases.
Help with the stable releases is very welcome.
[1] ath9k, ath10k, ath11k etc
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Ben Greear -
Greg KH -
Julian Calaby -
Kalle Valo -
Pali Rohár -
Sudip Mukherjee