[kernel-sec-discuss] r547 - patch-tracking
Dann Frazier
dannf at costa.debian.org
Wed Aug 16 23:58:17 UTC 2006
Author: dannf
Date: 2006-08-16 23:58:16 +0000 (Wed, 16 Aug 2006)
New Revision: 547
Modified:
patch-tracking/CVE-2004-0813
patch-tracking/CVE-2004-0997
patch-tracking/CVE-2004-1074
patch-tracking/CVE-2004-1190
patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0124
patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0179
patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0489
Log:
debian status updates
Modified: patch-tracking/CVE-2004-0813
===================================================================
--- patch-tracking/CVE-2004-0813 2006-08-16 23:57:38 UTC (rev 546)
+++ patch-tracking/CVE-2004-0813 2006-08-16 23:58:16 UTC (rev 547)
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=133098
Bugs:
upstream: fixed (2.6.10)
-linux-2.6.16:
+linux-2.6.16: N/A
linux-2.6: N/A
2.6.8-sarge-security: released (2.6.8-14)
2.4.27-sarge-security: ignored (2.4.27-10sarge3)
Modified: patch-tracking/CVE-2004-0997
===================================================================
--- patch-tracking/CVE-2004-0997 2006-08-16 23:57:38 UTC (rev 546)
+++ patch-tracking/CVE-2004-0997 2006-08-16 23:58:16 UTC (rev 547)
@@ -7,12 +7,13 @@
ptrace implementation [arch/mips/kernel/scall_o32.S,
arch/mips/tools/offset.c, arch/mips64/kernel/scall_64.S,
arch/mips64/kernel/scall_o32.S, CAN-2004-0997]
- dannf> I think this is already fixed in sarge; I've asked Thiemo to confirm.
- dannf> there is no 2.6.8 mips kernel-image in sarge, so mark it N/A
+ <dannf> ths: do you know if CVE-2004-0997 is fixed in 2.6? code is very
+ different from the 2.4.19 patch i have
+ <ths> dannf: Fixed long ago.
Bugs:
-upstream:
-linux-2.6.16:
-linux-2.6:
+upstream: released
+linux-2.6.16: N/A
+linux-2.6: N/A
2.6.8-sarge-security: N/A
2.4.27-sarge-security: ignored (2.4.27-10sarge3)
2.4.19-woody-security: released (2.4.19-4.woody3)
Modified: patch-tracking/CVE-2004-1074
===================================================================
--- patch-tracking/CVE-2004-1074 2006-08-16 23:57:38 UTC (rev 546)
+++ patch-tracking/CVE-2004-1074 2006-08-16 23:58:16 UTC (rev 547)
@@ -25,9 +25,9 @@
* Applied patch by Chris Wright to fix error handling in do_brk() when
setting up bss in a.out [fs/binfmt_aout.c, CAN-2004-1074]
Bugs:
-upstream:
-linux-2.6.16:
-linux-2.6:
+upstream: released (2.6.10)
+linux-2.6.16: N/A
+linux-2.6: N/A
2.6.8-sarge-security: released (2.6.8-11) [binfmt-huge-vma-dos.dpatch, binfmt-huge-vma-dos2.dpatch]
2.4.27-sarge-security: released (2.4.27-7) [114-binfmt_aout-CVE-2004-1074.diff]
2.4.19-woody-security: released (2.4.19-4.woody3)
Modified: patch-tracking/CVE-2004-1190
===================================================================
--- patch-tracking/CVE-2004-1190 2006-08-16 23:57:38 UTC (rev 546)
+++ patch-tracking/CVE-2004-1190 2006-08-16 23:58:16 UTC (rev 547)
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
Notes:
Bugs: 300162
upstream: released (2.6.10)
+linux-2.6.16: N/A
linux-2.6: N/A
2.6.8-sarge-security: released (2.6.8-14) [scsi-ioctl-cmd-warned.dpatch, scsi-ioctl-remove-dup.dpatch, scsi-ioctl-permit.dpatch, SG_IO-cap.dpatch, SG_IO-safe-commands-2.dpatch, SG_IO-safe-commands-3.dpatch, SG_IO-safe-commands-5.dpatch]
2.4.27-sarge-security: ignored (2.4.27-10sarge3)
Modified: patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0124
===================================================================
--- patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0124 2006-08-16 23:57:38 UTC (rev 546)
+++ patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0124 2006-08-16 23:58:16 UTC (rev 547)
@@ -14,10 +14,9 @@
of service (crash) or execute arbitrary code via negative vi.in_size or
vi.out_size values, which may trigger a buffer overflow.
Notes:
- dannf> It doesn't look like a fix has ever gone upstream
Bugs:
-upstream:
-linux-2.6.16:
-linux-2.6:
+upstream: released (2.6.11)
+linux-2.6.16: N/A
+linux-2.6: N/A
2.6.8-sarge-security: released (2.6.8-16sarge2) [fs_coda_coverty.dpatch]
2.4.27-sarge-security: released (2.4.27-8)
Modified: patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0179
===================================================================
--- patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0179 2006-08-16 23:57:38 UTC (rev 546)
+++ patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0179 2006-08-16 23:58:16 UTC (rev 547)
@@ -9,9 +9,12 @@
limits via the mlockall call.
Notes:
jmm> The vulnerable code was only introduced in 2.6.9
+ dannf> I believe this is fixed in:
+ http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.6/cset@41e2d63eQyYc3q3MPkKLhEktFoqfUw?nav=index.html|src/|src/mm|related/mm/mmap.c
+ dannf> and since that was in 2.6.11, i'll mark upstream as such
Bugs:
-upstream:
-linux-2.6.16:
-linux-2.6:
+upstream: released (2.6.11)
+linux-2.6.16: N/A
+linux-2.6: N/A
2.6.8-sarge-security: N/A
2.4.27-sarge-security: N/A
Modified: patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0489
===================================================================
--- patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0489 2006-08-16 23:57:38 UTC (rev 546)
+++ patch-tracking/CVE-2005-0489 2006-08-16 23:58:16 UTC (rev 547)
@@ -7,10 +7,9 @@
still marked **RESERVED**
But it looks like Joey used this patch for his kernel-source-2.4.18 update:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.4/cset@1.1359.1.22?nav=index.html|src/|src/fs|src/fs/proc|related/fs/proc/base.c
-
Bugs:
upstream: released (2.4.27-pre1)
-linux-2.6.16:
+linux-2.6.16: N/A
linux-2.6: N/A
2.6.8-sarge-security: N/A
2.4.27-sarge-security: N/A
More information about the kernel-sec-discuss
mailing list