On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
We got a Fedora bug for it, and there are similar RHEL bugs open. I
had assumed you would be informed either via upstream or through
those. The CVE request was submitted by Kees here:
http://seclists.org/oss-sec/2013/q4/330
josh
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
