On 12/10/13, 7:15 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:56 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Not yet. Ben said it's applied but I'm not sure where that is.
xfs git tree:
http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/xfs.git;a=commitdiff;h=071c529eb672648ee8ca3f90944bcbcc730b4c06
-Eric
> josh
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
