Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 07:41:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Siddharth Sharma <>
Subject: Re: CVE Request for glusterfs:  fuse check return
 value of setuid

can we have CVE assigned to this ?

Siddharth Sharma / Red Hat Product Security / Key ID : 0xD9F6489A 
Fingerprint :  0x6F04C684 A49C E4CE 8148 E841 CD6F 8E55 D9F6 489A 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Florian Weimer" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 6:14:51 PM
Subject: Re: [oss-security] CVE Request for glusterfs:  fuse check return value of setuid

* Siddharth Sharma:

> Problem description from the bug: 
> setuid() sets the effective user ID of the calling process.  
> If the effective UID of the caller is root, the real UID and
> saved set-user-ID are also set. On success, zero is returned.
> On error, -1 is returned, and errno is set appropriately.
> Note: there are cases where setuid() can fail even when the 
> caller is UID 0; it is a grave security error to omit checking
> for a failure return from setuid(). if an environment limits 
> the number of processes a user can have, setuid() might fail if
> the target uid already is at the limit.
> Can we have CVE assigned to this ?
> Upstream Ref: 

Original code:


Pluse two more locations in that file.

A single CVE ID for all these issues should probably suffice.

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.