| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 12:11 PM, William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:21:56AM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 05:47:10PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > All, |
| 5 |
>> > |
| 6 |
>> > these packages have been masked in the tree for months - years with no |
| 7 |
>> > signs of fixes. |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > I am particularly concerned about packages with known security |
| 10 |
>> > vulnerabilities staying in the main tree masked. If people want to keep |
| 11 |
>> > using those packages, I don't want to stop them, but packages like this |
| 12 |
>> > should not be in the main tree. |
| 13 |
>> > |
| 14 |
>> > # Mask gentoo-sources ebuilds that are affected with security bug CVE-2014-3153. |
| 15 |
>> > # |
| 16 |
>> > # Pinkie Pie discovered an issue in the futex subsystem that allows a |
| 17 |
>> > # local user to gain ring 0 control via the futex syscall. An |
| 18 |
>> > # unprivileged user could use this flaw to crash the kernel (resulting |
| 19 |
>> > # in denial of service) or for privilege escalation. |
| 20 |
>> > # |
| 21 |
>> > # https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2014-3153 |
| 22 |
>> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.2.58-r2 |
| 23 |
>> > ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.4.90 |
| 24 |
>> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.4.91 |
| 25 |
>> > ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.10.40 |
| 26 |
>> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.10.41 |
| 27 |
>> > ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.12.20 |
| 28 |
>> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.12.21 |
| 29 |
>> > ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.14.4 |
| 30 |
>> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.14.5 |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Mike, |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> since you responded here, what do you think about this p.mask entry? |
| 35 |
> Should we keep these in the tree? |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
>> |
| 38 |
>> Hello, |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>> What's the feeling for how long a package.mask entry should stay in the |
| 41 |
>> file in the event that a package can cause physical damage to a user's |
| 42 |
>> system. |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> For certain types of hardware, kernel 3.17.0 could cause some |
| 45 |
>> filesystem corruption. Of couse, 3.17.0 is out of the tree but when is |
| 46 |
>> it appropiate to say that a user has had enough time to upgarde their |
| 47 |
>> systems and we can remove this entry? |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> (qa hat off here, just a question) |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> I'm a bit confused here. |
| 52 |
> If you have a specific p.mask entry for 3.17.0 and 3.17.0 is out of the |
| 53 |
> tree, isn't that p.mask entry invalid now? If so, go ahead and remove |
| 54 |
> or adjust the entry. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
If users currently have 3.17.0 installed, portage will output a |
| 58 |
warning message about a masked package being installed, even if the |
| 59 |
ebuild no longer exists in the tree. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
If you remove the mask, users will no longer be warned that they are |
| 62 |
using a flawed copy of the kernel sources. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Thus, Mike's question about timing. |
Archives