linux-kernel - Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20131209235523.GW31386@dastard>
Date:	Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:55:23 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>
Cc:	Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@...onical.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
	Dwight Engen <dwight.engen@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
	Gao feng <gaofeng@...fujitsu.com>, Ben Myers <bpm@....com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, xfs@....sgi.com,
	stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?

[cc xfs list, cc stable@...r.kernel.org]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:17:09AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Luis Henriques
> <luis.henriques@...onical.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:35:50PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> It looks like 8c567a7fab6e086a0284eee2db82348521e7120c ("xfs: add
> >> capability check to free eofblocks ioctl") is a security fix that was
> >> never sent to -stable? From what I can see, it was introduced in 3.8
> >> by 8ca149de80478441352a8622ea15fae7de703ced ("xfs: add
> >> XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl").
> >>
> >> I don't see this in the 3.8.y tree. Should it be added there and newer?
> >
> > Thanks Kees, I'm queuing it for the 3.11 kernel.
> 
> There's also this one:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/57654
> 
> It fixes CVE-2013-6382

First I've heard about it there being a CVE for that bug. Since when
has it been considered best practice to publish CVEs without first
(or ever) directly contacting the relevant upstream developers?

But, regardless of how broken I think the CVE process is, commit
071c529 ("xfs: underflow bug in xfs_attrlist_by_handle()") should be
picked up by the stable kernels.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/