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

[Amit Shah]

On (Mon) 17 Nov 2014 [12:52:59], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 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.

Patch is public, so all of this doesn't really matter.

But: involving maintainers in their areas, even if the patch is
embargoed, should be a pre-requisite.  I'm not sure if we're doing
that, but please do that so patches get a proper review from the
maintainers.

> 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.

I'm sure we prefer migration patches go through the migration tree.

Also, this week I'm looking at the migration queue -- it's an
unofficial split of maintenance duties between Juan and me while we're
still trying to find out what works best.

> > > Which reminds me: we really should have someone in MAINTAINERS
> > > for migration-related files.
> > 
> > There is, since last week.
> 
> That's good. I see Juan is listed there now, so all's well.

But that was well-known anyway :-)


                Amit