xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?

To: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?
From: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:15:32 -0500
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dwight Engen <dwight.engen@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gao feng <gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/fqwS9pGakJaz6dvX5rZKKX1WI4G9Lz0mRyr9MuP6z0=; b=VrDs2tp8n2ObV5omP0EPWrEylbtqjlhcXV9xOcqPN4B4DaBXa7MYfJwYoqxre/G/oJ b8eoSPvqbdUBUYNlgZT1OdVVFSN5tuZTwI9V70+bwpjIfcUCQ6Cn3iRgwD23w1AwJLnA 4ba+8NVHR8qZiS/aL6Hu1FxTj+vzoW0wf/qwR2eHSPrP+nk7ppL3SPxJduZy0WMoTiwO swbfANM4kRCmpp1wxl1b5SZFmlmTCn/MWBHO+W4RzxlzSRLPQ60eNZD+w9zy7ICVMkX6 wryE4U5GnUbNwNTZcom1bPcf1QpaSzTTyfM6HRU6z1k+1iTpu+lakBu6oL/wUlRhXowl T/kg==
In-reply-to: <20131210075621.GA30135@xxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAGXu5jLKkgYg5UWJc8xBGN5NgDh68Q3YRxO--zmDL86BWPH78A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131209121534.GE4278@hercules> <CA+5PVA4ychvLEi1ZZ6rYy2=5-wZAbQ_a-aoy8=1w3+tr-pt3Fg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131209235523.GW31386@dastard> <20131210075621.GA30135@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx
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.

josh

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>