Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 00:16:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> To: rf@...eap.de cc: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Linux kernel futex local privilege escalation (CVE-2014-3153) On Fri, 6 Jun 2014, 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 > > absolutely have to be applied as well for the CVE's to be fixed and > functionality being OK otherwise? I need to backport to 3.12.x. The patches > for 3.13 sent by Alexander applied cleanly to latest 3.12. I really recommend f0d71b3dcb8332f7971b5f2363632573e6d9486a. 866293ee54227584ffcb4a42f69c1f365974ba7f is made obsolete by the 4 real fixes, but applying it first gets rid of the rejects. Thanks, tglx
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.