On 04/21/2016, 03:54 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 04/21/2016 08:39 AM, Greg KH wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 02:05:41PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>> On 04/21/2016, 01:59 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote: >>>>>>>> (CVE-2016-2085) 613317b EVM: Use crypto_memneq() for digest comparisons >>>>>> >>>>>> Does not exist in the CVE database/is not confirmed yet AFAICS. >>>> >>>> And now I am looking at the patch and I remember why I threw it away. >>>> crypto_memneq is not in 3.12 yet and I was not keen enough to backport it. >> Which brings up the question, Sasha, why did you think these CVEs were >> relevant for 3.12? What were you basing that list on? > > The EVM one? Because there exists a vulnerability in the 3.12 EVM code which > allows an attacker to essentially circumvent integrity checks, and the reason > it wasn't fixed was because a memory comparison helper function wasn't backported? Because sometimes the breakage risk is much higher than fixing a bug. This one was evaluated for 3.12.55 and not included at that time for that very reason. Now, given it it upstream for much longer, I reevaluated that and put that into the 3.12 tree. > For the other CVEs I've listed? I looked at what went in to 3.14 but not 3.12, > and audited the resulting list to confirm that the vulnerability existed on 3.12. Where exactly is 0185604 and 096fe9e contained in 3.14? I actually don't see them in any of Greg's stable tree. thanks, -- js suse labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html