[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53B90374.40005@canonical.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2014 04:06:12 -0400
From: John Johansen <john.johansen@...onical.com>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: CVE-2014-4699: Linux ptrace bug
On 07/05/2014 08:37 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On 14-07-05 05:22 PM, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
>> On sam., 2014-07-05 at 22:25 +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> Here are some distro vendor status pages on this bug:
>>>
>>> "x86_64,ptrace: Enforce RIP <= TASK_SIZE_MAX (CVE-2014-4699)"
>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1337339
>>>
>>> Ubuntu has just sent out 7 update announcements (for different of
>>> their
>>> supported distros/kernels), USN-2266-1 through USN-2272-1.
>>>
>>> "ptrace,x86: force IRET path after a ptrace_stop()"
>>> http://kernel.opensuse.org/cgit/kernel/commit/?h=openSUSE-13.1&id=d1f26676dad578a65c94782f0c2bd00b7aa68f1b
>>>
>>> "CVE-2014-4699 Kernel: x86_64,ptrace: Enforce RIP <= TASK_SIZE_MAX"
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115927
>>
>> Hmhm, what are the reasons why the mainline (and opensuse) fix
>> (b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a) is to force using IRET
>> instead of SYSRET, while distros like Ubuntu and Redhat seem to “only”
>> make sure RIP is canonical?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>
> AFAIK, our plan is to switch to the upstream fix for the next kernel updates.
>
yep, Ubuntu went with the original patch, as we where mostly through our process
when b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a hit. We decided to do a release with
the original patch so we could get something out this weekend, but will switch to
b9cd18de4db3c9ffa7e17b0dc0ca99ed5aa4d43a asap
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.
