On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 01:43:54PM -0700, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/11/2014 07:27 AM, Guido Günther wrote: > > Hi, > > attached patches backport the fixes for CVE-2013-6458 to v0.9.12-maint. I > > decided to cherry-pick the introduction of VIR_STRDUP and virReportError > > as well to ease backporting of future fixes. I'd be happy about any review. > > Looks correct to me. I'll let you push to 0.9.12-maint since you > already did that work; I already pushed to all the branches 0.10.2 and > later. When porting to 0.10.2, I chose to just inline the call to > strdup() instead of backporting VIR_STRDUP, for fewer patches but more > conflict resolution; but either approach seems acceptable. Thanks for the review! > > Is anyone still using v0.9.11-maint? The CVE extends back to 0.9.8, so > we could argue that we should either fix the 0.9.11 branch, or add > another commit to the branch that explicitly marks it as end-of-life > because no one appears to be relying on it. Fedora 18 is now > end-of-life, so from Fedora's perspective, I only care about 0.10.2 > (RHEL and CentOS 6), 1.0.5 (F19), 1.1.3 (F20) and soon 1.2.1 (rawhide), > although I didn't mind touching all the intermediate branches on my way > down to 0.10.2. RHEL 5 is also vulnerable to CVE-2013-6458, but as we > don't have an upstream v0.8.2-maint branch (thank goodness!), that's > something for Red Hat to worry about. I'd say let's close 0.9.11. We have 0.8.3 in Debian oldstable but I'm not going to open a maint branch for this but deal with it in the package itself. Cheers, -- Guido -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list