[kernel-sec-discuss] r547 - patch-tracking

[Dann Frazier]

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