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