qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] migration: fix CVE-2014-7840


From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] migration: fix CVE-2014-7840
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 12:52:59 +0200

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:08:58PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> On (Mon) 17 Nov 2014 [12:32:57], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:06:38PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> > > On (Wed) 12 Nov 2014 [11:44:35], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > This patchset fixes CVE-2014-7840: invalid
> > > > migration stream can cause arbitrary qemu memory
> > > > overwrite.
> > > > First patch includes the minimal fix for the issue.
> > > > Follow-up patches on top add extra checking to reduce the
> > > > chance this kind of bug recurs.
> > > > 
> > > > Note: these are already (tentatively-pending review)
> > > > queued in my tree, so only review/ack
> > > > is necessary.
> > > 
> > > Why not let this go in via the migration tree?
> > 
> > Well I Cc'd Juan and David, so if they had a problem with this, I expect
> > they'd complain.  David acked so I assume it's ok.  Since I wasted time
> > testing this and have it on my tree already, might as well just merge.
> 
> IMO asking as a courtesy would've been better than just stating it.

Right, thanks for reminding me.

BTW, there is actually a good reason to special-case it: it's a CVE fix,
which I handle.  So they stay on my private queue and are passed
to vendors so vendors can fix downstreams, until making fix public is
cleared with all reporters and vendors.
After reporting is cleared, I try to collect acks but don't normally route
patches through separate queues - that would make it harder to
track the status which we need for CVEs.

I guess this specific one actually is well contained, so it could go in
through a specific tree if it had to.  In fact, it is still possible if
Juan says he prefers it so: I only expect to send pull request around
tomorrow or the day after that.

> > Which reminds me: we really should have someone in MAINTAINERS
> > for migration-related files.
> 
> There is, since last week.
> 
> 
>               Amit

That's good. I see Juan is listed there now, so all's well.

-- 
MST



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]