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: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:58:44 +0000
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 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
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
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>
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 11:56:21PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman 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?

This commit is now in Linus's:

31978b5 xfs: underflow bug in xfs_attrlist_by_handle()

Cheers,
--
Luis

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