On 04/21/2016 10:13 AM, Jiri Slaby wrote: > 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. Okay, fair enough. >> 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. You're right, I looked at the 3.18 tree rather than 3.14, where there are: 8dc1d26 KVM: x86: Reload pit counters for all channels when restoring state 3fee639 KEYS: Fix handling of stored error in a negatively instantiated user key This means that missing CVE fixes are quite common with stable trees? Thanks, Sasha -- 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