[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YFOc8bhUAKOgjfVS@sashalap>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2021 14:33:21 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
To: oss-security@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: CVE-2021-20219 Linux kernel: improper
synchronization in flush_to_ldisc() can lead to DoS
On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:19:31AM -0700, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 01:08:21PM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> But none of that takes into account for the backporting of commits into
>> the stable tree, you need a different tool for that, which many of us
>> have our own. If you use that you will see that the above commit really
>> is in lots of fixed kernel trees:
>>
>> $ id_found_in 3d63b7e4ae0dc5e02d28ddd2fa1f945defc68d81
>> 3.16.61 3.18.115 4.4.140 4.9.112 4.14.54 4.17.5 4.18
>
>It's not really Red Hat's fault that there are six hundred "stable"
>kernel versions, which each change approximately weekly. It's generally
>not worth tracking, and it would not be sane to expect Red Hat to seek
>or announce CVEs for git branches they don't maintain.
I think that this is an excellent point: RedHat shouldn't be reporting
issues for "Linux Kernel" then. Look at the subject of this mail:
CVE-2021-20219 Linux kernel: improper synchronization in flush_to_ldisc() can lead to DoS
It doesn't say "Red Hat Linux kernel", it just says "Linux kernel",
right?
Red Hat runs on a forked version of the kernel that has it's own set of
backports, features, and bugs. As you pointed out I think it would make
a lot of sense if they would instead start assigning CVEs for "Red Hat
Linux Kernel".
--
Thanks,
Sasha
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.
