[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 10:15:17 +0100
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE-2017-15102: Linux kernel: usb: NULL-deref due
to a race condition in [legousbtower] driver
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 08:30:05PM +0000, Maier, Kurt H wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-11-07 at 21:22 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > I hate to ask, but why are you getting CVEs for bugs fixed over a
> > year
> > ago, and are already in all stable kernel releases a year ago? Why
> > does
> > it matter?
> >
> > Unless you happen to have a product that doesn't ever do kernel
> > updates
> > from the stable trees, and well, then you know what you are doing and
> > don't need CVEs assigned either, right? :)
> >
>
> Kernel maintainers' policy is clear, and nobody is asking for that to
> change, but please don't sandbag the process of keeping track of
> vulnerabilities. The fraction of "products" (regardless of vendor)
> that run linux and never get updates approaches unity. Being able to
> precisely catalog which linux releases suffer from which
> vulnerabilities is useful to many.
Well, I'm working on fixing the "devices do not get updates" issue
through other means, so don't just give up on that one just yet :)
As for the "keep track of vulnerabilities", is that what is really
happening here? Why pick a random bug fix from over a year ago for a
CVE vs. the 100 other bugfixes in the past few weeks/months?
I'm really curious as to what triggered this specific CVE request that
somehow misses the hundreds/thousands of other fixes that land in newer
kernel releases?
thanks,
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.
