[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 07:05:13 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Linux kernel futex local privilege escalation
(CVE-2014-3153)
On Fri, Jun 06, 2014 at 11:11:42AM +0200, rf@...eap.de wrote:
> >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> >> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 11:38:27PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 06:45:45PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> >> > > I've attached patches by Thomas Gleixner (four e-mails, in
> >> > > mbox format), as well as back-ports of those by John Johansen
> >> > > of Canonical, who wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find any statement of
> >> > what version these patches are intended to apply cleanly
> >> > to. They don't apply to latest stable.
> >>
> >> Thomas - can you answer Rich's question? This is about patches
> >> you sent on June 3 to linux-distros, which Kees then saved into
> >> an mbox file.
>
> Thomas> They should apply cleanly, if all stable tagged futex
> Thomas> patches before that are applied.
>
> could you please clarify whether
>
> f0d71b3dcb8332f7971b5f2363632573e6d9486a futex: Prevent attaching to kernel threads
> 866293ee54227584ffcb4a42f69c1f365974ba7f futex: Add another early deadlock detection check
As people keep asking me this, I'll respond with, "why wouldn't you
apply them"?
They are going to be in the next kernel stable releases, along with the
other 4 patches, so I recommend them for your custom kernels as well.
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Please check out the
Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this
mailing list.
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
