Re: [gentoo-dev] qa last rites multiple packages

[Mike Pagano]

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 05:47:10PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> All,
>
> these packages have been masked in the tree for months - years with no
> signs of fixes.
>
> I am particularly concerned about packages with known security
> vulnerabilities staying in the main tree masked. If people want to keep
> using those packages, I don't want to stop them, but packages like this
> should not be in the main tree.
>
> # Mask gentoo-sources ebuilds that are affected with security bug CVE-2014-3153.
> #
> # Pinkie Pie discovered an issue in the futex subsystem that allows a
> # local user to gain ring 0 control via the futex syscall. An
> # unprivileged user could use this flaw to crash the kernel (resulting
> # in denial of service) or for privilege escalation.
> #
> # https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2014-3153
> =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.2.58-r2
> ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.4.90
> =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.4.91
> ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.10.40
> =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.10.41
> ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.12.20
> =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.12.21
> ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.14.4
> =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.14.5

Hello,

What's the feeling for how long a package.mask entry should stay in the
file in the event that a package can cause physical damage to a user's 
system.

For certain types of hardware, kernel 3.17.0 could cause some
filesystem corruption. Of couse, 3.17.0 is out of the tree but when is
it appropiate to say that a user has had enough time to upgarde their
systems and we can remove this entry?

Mike


-- 
Mike Pagano
Gentoo Developer - Kernel Project
Gentoo Sources - Lead 
E-Mail     : mpagano@g.o
GnuPG FP   : EEE2 601D 0763 B60F 848C  9E14 3C33 C650 B576 E4E3
Public Key : http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xB576E4E3&op=index