Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:06:41 -0600
From: dann frazier <>
Subject: Re: kernel: hvc_console: Fix race between hvc_close
	and hvc_remove

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:26:46PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:15:42 -0400 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 17:03:58 +0800 Eugene Teo wrote:
> > 
> > > Heads-up. You might want to backport this if your kernel is affected. We 
> > > are not requesting a CVE name for this as it does not affect any of our 
> > > Red Hat supported kernels.
> > 
> > are you sure about this?  i see the vulnerable code upstream in both
> > 2.6.26 and 2.6.32.  does redhat not ship hvc in their kernels?  i think
> > this should get a cve id because the more vanilla distros will have
> > shipped with this included.
> i see that hvc_console is disabled by default in the debian kernels,

Actually, upon review, I see that it is enabled (see the powerpc64
image). Therefore, I'd like to request a CVE ID for it.

> and i assume it is the same for the redhat kernels.
> are issues in features that are disabled by default generally treated
> as unimportant? there are bound to be a (perhaps small) subset of users
> turning these features on; exposing themselves to more risk if these
> issues go unfixed. i suppose cve assignment depends on whether or not
> there is an expectation to protect those users in addition to
> defaults-using users. 
> mike

dann frazier

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.