xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS security fix never sent to -stable?
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:57:46 -0600
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dwight Engen <dwight.engen@xxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Gao feng <gaofeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <52A725BB.8080602@xxxxxxxxxxx>
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> <52A725BB.8080602@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hi,

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:31:23AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 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

I'll send a pull request containing this commit this afternoon.

Thanks,
        Ben

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