On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:55:23AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> [cc xfs list, cc stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 08:17:09AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Luis Henriques
> > <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 04:35:50PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> It looks like 8c567a7fab6e086a0284eee2db82348521e7120c ("xfs: add
> > >> capability check to free eofblocks ioctl") is a security fix that was
> > >> never sent to -stable? From what I can see, it was introduced in 3.8
> > >> by 8ca149de80478441352a8622ea15fae7de703ced ("xfs: add
> > >> XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS ioctl").
> > >>
> > >> I don't see this in the 3.8.y tree. Should it be added there and newer?
> > >
> > > Thanks Kees, I'm queuing it for the 3.11 kernel.
> >
> > There's also this one:
> >
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.xfs.general/57654
> >
> > It fixes CVE-2013-6382
>
> First I've heard about it there being a CVE for that bug. Since when
> has it been considered best practice to publish CVEs without first
> (or ever) directly contacting the relevant upstream developers?
>
> But, regardless of how broken I think the CVE process is, commit
> 071c529 ("xfs: underflow bug in xfs_attrlist_by_handle()") should be
> picked up by the stable kernels.
I don't see that commit in Linus's tree, is it not there yet?
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
