linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3.13 163/163] lzo: check for length overrun in variable length encoding.

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <1413221463.11421.30.camel@fourier>
Date:	Mon, 13 Oct 2014 10:31:03 -0700
From:	Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To:	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3.13 163/163] lzo: check for length overrun in variable
 length encoding.

On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 07:30 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Kamal,
> 
> [ removed Don Bailey from the CC who's certainly not interested in this ]
> 
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 02:03:08PM -0700, Kamal Mostafa wrote:
> > 3.13.11.9 -stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> > 
> > ------------------
> > 
> > From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
> > 
> > commit 72cf90124e87d975d0b2114d930808c58b4c05e4 upstream.
> 
> (...)

Hi Willy-

Thanks very much for reviewing this.

> This one (and the accompanying revert) are still not present in more
> recent stable kernels, so I find it surprizing that you're proposing
> to integrate them now.

I can hold out those lzo fixes until the next 3.13-stable if you prefer.
But fwiw...

>  If someone upgrades from 3.13.11.9 to 3.14.21
> or 3.16.5, they'd expect to keep all fixes but will lose this one, so
> this is a bit confusing.

I think those sorts of scheduling mismatches and discrepancies between
stable versions are pretty common.  Examples:  The top 11 commits in
v3.12.30 have not yet been applied[0] to any of the newer stable
branches;  Many of the commits in v3.10.57 have not yet been applied[1]
to linux-3.12.y but have been released in other newer stables.

>  Is there any reason you're not tracking fixes
> from more recent versions like Jiri, Li, Ben and I are doing ?

We (the Canonical stable maintainers) have always tracked the "cc:
stable" fixes directly from mainline, not from the more-recent-version
branches.  Given the examples above, it seems that the kernel.org
maintainers are doing that too, yes?

 -Kamal

[0] linux-3.12.y  1d08848..99ed1bd  (part of the big mm patch set)
[1] linux-3.10.y  07d209b..7dd3111  (various "cc: stable" patches)


--
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/