On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 02:02:09PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 10:41 +0800, Gen Zhang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 07:58:35PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 16:02 -0700, Zubin Mithra wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > CVE-2019-12381 was fixed in the upstream linux kernel with the commit :-
> > > > * 425aa0e1d015 ("ip_sockglue: Fix missing-check bug in ip_ra_control()")
> > > >
> > > > Could the patch be applied in order to v4.19.y, v4.14.y, v4.9.y and v4.4.y ?
> > > >
> > > > Tests run:
> > > > * Chrome OS tryjobs
> > >
> > > This doesn't fix a security vulnerability. There already was a check
> > > for allocation failure before dereferencing the returned pointer; it
> > > just wasn't in the most obvious place.
> > >
> > > I've requested rejection of this CVE, and several other invalid reports
> > > from the same person.
> > And where did this 'invalid' come from? Did any maintainers claimed the
> > patch 'invalid' or something? I am confused...
>
> I'm not saying the patch is invalid. It makes the code clearer and
> seems to result in returning a more appropriate error code. So I don't
> disagree with the patch, only the claim that it's fixing a security
> issue.
>
> My requests to reject the CVE assignments were made using MITRE's web
> form.
Well, I see. Thanks for your comments.
Thanks
Gen
>
> Ben.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Life would be so much easier if we could look at the source code.
>
>
