Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?

[Dave Chinner]

[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.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/