xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?

To: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:31:23 -0600
Cc: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dwight Engen <dwight.engen@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>, Gao feng <gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CA+5PVA7L0u9cq0Zvnw3J7Yun3+TfMH3fPC3M8=mvxT3EGKX=fQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAGXu5jLKkgYg5UWJc8xBGN5NgDh68Q3YRxO--zmDL86BWPH78A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131209121534.GE4278@hercules> <CA+5PVA4ychvLEi1ZZ6rYy2=5-wZAbQ_a-aoy8=1w3+tr-pt3Fg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131209235523.GW31386@dastard> <20131210075621.GA30135@xxxxxxxxx> <CA+5PVA7L0u9cq0Zvnw3J7Yun3+TfMH3fPC3M8=mvxT3EGKX=fQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
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

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