import systemd-239-82.el8

SOURCES/1006-ci-add-configuration-for-regression-sniffer-GA.patch

+From ca150b92be2e0edf3bfafe88ee79a419e7e11aaa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Jan Macku <jamacku@redhat.com>
+Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 13:40:45 +0100
+Subject: [PATCH] ci: add configuration for regression sniffer GA
+
+rhel-only
+
+Related: RHEL-1087
+---
+ .github/regression-sniffer.yml | 1 +
+ 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
+ create mode 100644 .github/regression-sniffer.yml
+
+diff --git a/.github/regression-sniffer.yml b/.github/regression-sniffer.yml
+new file mode 100644
+index 0000000000..3824028e92
+--- /dev/null
++++ b/.github/regression-sniffer.yml
+@@ -0,0 +1 @@
++upstream: systemd/systemd

SOURCES/1007-coredump-actually-store-parsed-unit-in-the-context.patch

+From ccaa361e04719efc6bcf7f3201cc9e6a869677d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Michal Sekletar <msekleta@redhat.com>
+Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:40:32 +0100
+Subject: [PATCH] coredump: actually store parsed unit in the context
+
+RHEL-only
+
+Related: RHEL-18302
+---
+ src/coredump/coredump.c | 5 +++--
+ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/src/coredump/coredump.c b/src/coredump/coredump.c
+index d8acd2d3a7..7af8e97877 100644
+--- a/src/coredump/coredump.c
++++ b/src/coredump/coredump.c
+@@ -1262,6 +1262,8 @@ static int gather_pid_metadata(
+                 context->meta[CONTEXT_EXE] = t;
+ 
+         if (cg_pid_get_unit(pid, &t) >= 0) {
++                context->meta[CONTEXT_UNIT] = t;
++
+                 if (!is_journald_crash(context)) {
+                         /* OK, now we know it's not the journal, hence we can make use of it now. */
+                         log_set_target(LOG_TARGET_JOURNAL_OR_KMSG);
+@@ -1275,8 +1277,7 @@ static int gather_pid_metadata(
+                 }
+ 
+                 set_iovec_string_field(iovec, n_iovec, "COREDUMP_UNIT=", context->meta[CONTEXT_UNIT]);
+-        } else
+-                context->meta[CONTEXT_UNIT] = t;
++        }
+ 
+         if (cg_pid_get_user_unit(pid, &t) >= 0)
+                 set_iovec_field_free(iovec, n_iovec, "COREDUMP_USER_UNIT=", t);

SOURCES/1008-resolved-limit-the-number-of-signature-validations-i.patch

+From 899e3c43d6ac9d97c3cb9340b778427391def4ac Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Jacek Migacz <jmigacz@redhat.com>
+Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 13:47:24 +0100
+Subject: [PATCH] resolved: limit the number of signature validations in a
+ transaction
+
+It has been demonstrated that tolerating an unbounded number of dnssec
+signature validations is a bad idea. It is easy for a maliciously
+crafted DNS reply to contain as many keytag collisions as desired,
+causing us to iterate every dnskey and signature combination in vain.
+
+The solution is to impose a maximum number of validations we will
+tolerate. While collisions are not hard to craft, I still expect they
+are unlikely in the wild so it should be safe to pick fairly small
+values.
+
+Here two limits are imposed: one on the maximum number of invalid
+signatures encountered per rrset, and another on the total number of
+validations performed per transaction.
+
+(cherry picked from commit 67d0ce8843d612a2245d0966197d4f528b911b66)
+
+Resolves: RHEL-26644
+---
+ src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c      | 16 ++++++++++++++--
+ src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.h      |  9 ++++++++-
+ src/resolve/resolved-dns-transaction.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++---
+ 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c b/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c
+index 0a6f482cc1..5dbfbc94c7 100644
+--- a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c
++++ b/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c
+@@ -996,6 +996,7 @@ int dnssec_verify_rrset_search(
+                 DnsResourceRecord **ret_rrsig) {
+ 
+         bool found_rrsig = false, found_invalid = false, found_expired_rrsig = false, found_unsupported_algorithm = false;
++        unsigned nvalidations = 0;
+         DnsResourceRecord *rrsig;
+         int r;
+ 
+@@ -1041,6 +1042,14 @@ int dnssec_verify_rrset_search(
+                         if (realtime == USEC_INFINITY)
+                                 realtime = now(CLOCK_REALTIME);
+ 
++                        /* Have we seen an unreasonable number of invalid signaures? */
++                        if (nvalidations > DNSSEC_INVALID_MAX) {
++                                if (ret_rrsig)
++                                        *ret_rrsig = NULL;
++                                *result = DNSSEC_TOO_MANY_VALIDATIONS;
++                                return (int) nvalidations;
++                        }
++
+                         /* Yay, we found a matching RRSIG with a matching
+                          * DNSKEY, awesome. Now let's verify all entries of
+                          * the RRSet against the RRSIG and DNSKEY
+@@ -1050,6 +1059,8 @@ int dnssec_verify_rrset_search(
+                         if (r < 0)
+                                 return r;
+ 
++                        nvalidations++;
++
+                         switch (one_result) {
+ 
+                         case DNSSEC_VALIDATED:
+@@ -1060,7 +1071,7 @@ int dnssec_verify_rrset_search(
+                                         *ret_rrsig = rrsig;
+ 
+                                 *result = one_result;
+-                                return 0;
++                                return (int) nvalidations;
+ 
+                         case DNSSEC_INVALID:
+                                 /* If the signature is invalid, let's try another
+@@ -1107,7 +1118,7 @@ int dnssec_verify_rrset_search(
+         if (ret_rrsig)
+                 *ret_rrsig = NULL;
+ 
+-        return 0;
++        return (int) nvalidations;
+ }
+ 
+ int dnssec_has_rrsig(DnsAnswer *a, const DnsResourceKey *key) {
+@@ -2301,6 +2312,7 @@ static const char* const dnssec_result_table[_DNSSEC_RESULT_MAX] = {
+         [DNSSEC_FAILED_AUXILIARY] = "failed-auxiliary",
+         [DNSSEC_NSEC_MISMATCH] = "nsec-mismatch",
+         [DNSSEC_INCOMPATIBLE_SERVER] = "incompatible-server",
++        [DNSSEC_TOO_MANY_VALIDATIONS]  = "too-many-validations",
+ };
+ DEFINE_STRING_TABLE_LOOKUP(dnssec_result, DnssecResult);
+ 
+diff --git a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.h b/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.h
+index dfee7232c0..4d6abee084 100644
+--- a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.h
++++ b/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.h
+@@ -9,12 +9,13 @@ typedef enum DnssecVerdict DnssecVerdict;
+ #include "resolved-dns-rr.h"
+ 
+ enum DnssecResult {
+-        /* These five are returned by dnssec_verify_rrset() */
++        /* These six are returned by dnssec_verify_rrset() */
+         DNSSEC_VALIDATED,
+         DNSSEC_VALIDATED_WILDCARD, /* Validated via a wildcard RRSIG, further NSEC/NSEC3 checks necessary */
+         DNSSEC_INVALID,
+         DNSSEC_SIGNATURE_EXPIRED,
+         DNSSEC_UNSUPPORTED_ALGORITHM,
++        DNSSEC_TOO_MANY_VALIDATIONS,
+ 
+         /* These two are added by dnssec_verify_rrset_search() */
+         DNSSEC_NO_SIGNATURE,
+@@ -45,6 +46,12 @@ enum DnssecVerdict {
+ /* The longest digest we'll ever generate, of all digest algorithms we support */
+ #define DNSSEC_HASH_SIZE_MAX (MAX(20, 32))
+ 
++/* The most invalid signatures we will tolerate for a single rrset */
++#define DNSSEC_INVALID_MAX 5
++
++/* The total number of signature validations we will tolerate for a single transaction */
++#define DNSSEC_VALIDATION_MAX 64
++
+ int dnssec_rrsig_match_dnskey(DnsResourceRecord *rrsig, DnsResourceRecord *dnskey, bool revoked_ok);
+ int dnssec_key_match_rrsig(const DnsResourceKey *key, DnsResourceRecord *rrsig);
+ 
+diff --git a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-transaction.c b/src/resolve/resolved-dns-transaction.c
+index 6f614d7493..1ca6c9abc8 100644
+--- a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-transaction.c
++++ b/src/resolve/resolved-dns-transaction.c
+@@ -2870,11 +2870,14 @@ static int dnssec_validate_records(
+                 DnsTransaction *t,
+                 Phase phase,
+                 bool *have_nsec,
++                unsigned *nvalidations,
+                 DnsAnswer **validated) {
+ 
+         DnsResourceRecord *rr;
+         int r;
+ 
++        assert(nvalidations);
++
+         /* Returns negative on error, 0 if validation failed, 1 to restart validation, 2 when finished. */
+ 
+         DNS_ANSWER_FOREACH(rr, t->answer) {
+@@ -2909,6 +2912,7 @@ static int dnssec_validate_records(
+                 r = dnssec_verify_rrset_search(t->answer, rr->key, t->validated_keys, USEC_INFINITY, &result, &rrsig);
+                 if (r < 0)
+                         return r;
++                *nvalidations += r;
+ 
+                 log_debug("Looking at %s: %s", strna(dns_resource_record_to_string(rr)), dnssec_result_to_string(result));
+ 
+@@ -3086,7 +3090,8 @@ static int dnssec_validate_records(
+                                            DNSSEC_SIGNATURE_EXPIRED,
+                                            DNSSEC_NO_SIGNATURE))
+                                         manager_dnssec_verdict(t->scope->manager, DNSSEC_BOGUS, rr->key);
+-                                else /* DNSSEC_MISSING_KEY or DNSSEC_UNSUPPORTED_ALGORITHM */
++                                else /* DNSSEC_MISSING_KEY, DNSSEC_UNSUPPORTED_ALGORITHM,
++                                        or DNSSEC_TOO_MANY_VALIDATIONS */
+                                         manager_dnssec_verdict(t->scope->manager, DNSSEC_INDETERMINATE, rr->key);
+ 
+                                 /* This is a primary response to our question, and it failed validation.
+@@ -3180,13 +3185,21 @@ int dns_transaction_validate_dnssec(DnsTransaction *t) {
+                 return r;
+ 
+         phase = DNSSEC_PHASE_DNSKEY;
+-        for (;;) {
++        for (unsigned nvalidations = 0;;) {
+                 bool have_nsec = false;
+ 
+-                r = dnssec_validate_records(t, phase, &have_nsec, &validated);
++                r = dnssec_validate_records(t, phase, &have_nsec, &nvalidations, &validated);
+                 if (r <= 0)
+                         return r;
+ 
++                if (nvalidations > DNSSEC_VALIDATION_MAX) {
++                        /* This reply requires an onerous number of signature validations to verify. Let's
++                         * not waste our time trying, as this shouldn't happen for well-behaved domains
++                         * anyway. */
++                        t->answer_dnssec_result = DNSSEC_TOO_MANY_VALIDATIONS;
++                        return 0;
++                }
++
+                 /* Try again as long as we managed to achieve something */
+                 if (r == 1)
+                         continue;

SOURCES/1009-resolved-reduce-the-maximum-nsec3-iterations-to-100.patch

+From 92124e84be68005be92cce046c7c679b98199d66 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Jacek Migacz <jmigacz@redhat.com>
+Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 13:56:36 +0100
+Subject: [PATCH] resolved: reduce the maximum nsec3 iterations to 100
+
+According to RFC9267, the 2500 value is not helpful, and in fact it can
+be harmful to permit a large number of iterations. Combined with limits
+on the number of signature validations, I expect this will mitigate the
+impact of maliciously crafted domains designed to cause excessive
+cryptographic work.
+
+(cherry picked from commit eba291124bc11f03732d1fc468db3bfac069f9cb)
+
+Related: RHEL-26644
+---
+ src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c | 5 +++--
+ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c b/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c
+index 5dbfbc94c7..5a0540568c 100644
+--- a/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c
++++ b/src/resolve/resolved-dns-dnssec.c
+@@ -22,8 +22,9 @@
+ /* Permit a maximum clock skew of 1h 10min. This should be enough to deal with DST confusion */
+ #define SKEW_MAX (1*USEC_PER_HOUR + 10*USEC_PER_MINUTE)
+ 
+-/* Maximum number of NSEC3 iterations we'll do. RFC5155 says 2500 shall be the maximum useful value */
+-#define NSEC3_ITERATIONS_MAX 2500
++/* Maximum number of NSEC3 iterations we'll do. RFC5155 says 2500 shall be the maximum useful value, but
++ * RFC9276 § 3.2 says that we should reduce the acceptable iteration count */
++#define NSEC3_ITERATIONS_MAX 100
+ 
+ /*
+  * The DNSSEC Chain of trust:

SPECS/systemd.spec

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 Name:           systemd
 Url:            http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
 Version:        239
-Release:        81%{?dist}
+Release:        82%{?dist}
 # For a breakdown of the licensing, see README
 License:        LGPLv2+ and MIT and GPLv2+
 Summary:        System and Service Manager
@@ -1055,6 +1055,10 @@ Patch1002: 1002-udev-net_id-introduce-naming-scheme-for-RHEL-8.10.patch
 Patch1003: 1003-doc-add-missing-listitem-to-systemd.net-naming-schem.patch
 Patch1004: 1004-service-schedule-cleanup-of-PID-hashmaps-when-we-now.patch
 Patch1005: 1005-man-update-link-to-RHEL-documentation.patch
+Patch1006: 1006-ci-add-configuration-for-regression-sniffer-GA.patch
+Patch1007: 1007-coredump-actually-store-parsed-unit-in-the-context.patch
+Patch1008: 1008-resolved-limit-the-number-of-signature-validations-i.patch
+Patch1009: 1009-resolved-reduce-the-maximum-nsec3-iterations-to-100.patch
 
 %ifarch %{ix86} x86_64 aarch64
 %global have_gnu_efi 1
@@ -1685,6 +1689,12 @@ fi
 %files tests -f .file-list-tests
 
 %changelog
+* Thu Mar 07 2024 systemd maintenance team <systemd-maint@redhat.com> - 239-82
+- ci: add configuration for regression sniffer GA (RHEL-1087)
+- coredump: actually store parsed unit in the context (RHEL-18302)
+- resolved: limit the number of signature validations in a transaction (RHEL-26644)
+- resolved: reduce the maximum nsec3 iterations to 100 (RHEL-26644)
+
 * Mon Feb 26 2024 systemd maintenance team <systemd-maint@redhat.com> - 239-81
 - man: update link to RHEL documentation (RHEL-26355)