Skip to content

Add crossbeam-channel advisory re upstream MR #1187 #2277

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 10, 2025
Merged

Add crossbeam-channel advisory re upstream MR #1187 #2277

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
dcdeb08
Add crossbeam-channel advisory re upstream MR #1187
ijackson Apr 9, 2025
b6775b6
crossbeam-channel: Fix fixed version
ijackson Apr 9, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
33 changes: 33 additions & 0 deletions crates/crossbeam-channel/RUSTSEC-0000-0000.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
```toml
[advisory]
id = "RUSTSEC-0000-0000"
package = "crossbeam-channel"
date = "2025-04-08"
url = "https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1187"
categories = ["memory-corruption"]
keywords = ["race"]
aliases = ["TROVE-2025-013"]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Not sure about the TROVE alias -- seems kinda niche, are there other advisories here that have TROVE aliases already?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes, but so far only tor-* crates (ie, our crates).

ISTM that provided that the naming is unique enough (which I think it is, here), RUSTSEC should be promiscuous about accepting identifiers from other registries - but not necessarily proactive in seeking them out. But the policy is up to you.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@tarcieri @alex opinions?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm fine with it.


[versions]
patched = [">= 0.5.15"]
unaffected = ["<= 0.5.11"]
```

# crossbeam-channel: double free on Drop

The internal `Channel` type's `Drop` method has a race
which could, in some circumstances, lead to a double-free.
This could result in memory corruption.

Quoting from the
[upstream description in merge request \#1187](https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1187#issue-2980761131):

> The problem lies in the fact that `dicard_all_messages` contained two paths that could lead to `head.block` being read but only one of them would swap the value. This meant that `dicard_all_messages` could end up observing a non-null block pointer (and therefore attempting to free it) without setting `head.block` to null. This would then lead to `Channel::drop` making a second attempt at dropping the same pointer.

The bug was introduced while fixing a memory leak, in
upstream [MR \#1084](https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1084),
first published in 0.5.12.

The fix is in
upstream [MR \#1187](https://github.com/crossbeam-rs/crossbeam/pull/1187)
and has been published in 0.5.15