* [wrynose][PATCH] glibc: fix CVE-2026-19542
@ 2026-09-03 17:03 Harish.Sadineni
2026-09-03 17:36 ` [OE-core] " Adarsh Jagadish Kamini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Harish.Sadineni @ 2026-09-03 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core; +Cc: Sundeep.Kokkonda
From: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
Allocate the maximum array sizes directly, instead of resizing
the arrays as needed. This eliminates alloca usage from the
function, and fixes the out-of-bounds accesses. The asserts
guard against the bug coming back if the balancing of the tree
turns out not to work correctly.
Upstream-Status: Backport [https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3]
CVE: CVE-2026-19542
Reference:
[1]https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-19542
[2]https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34506
[3]https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3
Signed-off-by: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
---
.../glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch | 98 +++++++++++++++++++
meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb | 1 +
2 files changed, 99 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..d4b42c6ea4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+From e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
+Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:41:16 +0200
+Subject: [PATCH] misc: Fix out-of-bounds array write in tdelete (bug 34506)
+
+Allocate the maximum array sizes directly, instead of resizing
+the arrays as needed. This eliminates alloca usage from the
+function, and fixes the out-of-bounds accesses. The asserts
+guard against the bug coming back if the balancing of the tree
+turns out not to work correctly.
+
+CVE: CVE-2025-19542
+Upstream-Status: Backport [https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3]
+
+Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
+Signed-off-by: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
+---
+ misc/tsearch.c | 31 +++++++++++--------------------
+ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
+
+diff --git a/misc/tsearch.c b/misc/tsearch.c
+index 9b2eb34b25..e517dfa712 100644
+--- a/misc/tsearch.c
++++ b/misc/tsearch.c
+@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
+ #include <assert.h>
+ #include <stdalign.h>
+ #include <stddef.h>
++#include <stdint.h>
+ #include <stdlib.h>
+ #include <string.h>
+ #include <search.h>
+@@ -406,12 +407,13 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
+ int cmp;
+ node *rootp = (node *) vrootp;
+ node root, unchained;
+- /* Stack of nodes so we remember the parents without recursion. It's
+- _very_ unlikely that there are paths longer than 40 nodes. The tree
+- would need to have around 250.000 nodes. */
+- int stacksize = 40;
++ /* Stack of nodes so we remember the parents without recursion. The
++ stack size is a conservative approximation of the maximum height
++ of a red-black tree, based on size of the address space.
++ Actual numbers are closer to 57 (32 bit) and 117 (63 bit). */
++ enum { stacksize = 2 * UINTPTR_WIDTH };
+ int sp = 0;
+- node **nodestack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
++ node *nodestack[stacksize];
+
+ if (rootp == NULL)
+ return NULL;
+@@ -424,14 +426,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
+ root = DEREFNODEPTR(rootp);
+ while ((cmp = (*compar) (key, root->key)) != 0)
+ {
+- if (sp == stacksize)
+- {
+- node **newstack;
+- stacksize += 20;
+- newstack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
+- nodestack = memcpy (newstack, nodestack, sp * sizeof (node *));
+- }
+-
++ assert (sp < stacksize);
+ nodestack[sp++] = rootp;
+ p = DEREFNODEPTR(rootp);
+ if (cmp < 0)
+@@ -470,13 +465,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
+ node upn;
+ for (;;)
+ {
+- if (sp == stacksize)
+- {
+- node **newstack;
+- stacksize += 20;
+- newstack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
+- nodestack = memcpy (newstack, nodestack, sp * sizeof (node *));
+- }
++ assert (sp < stacksize);
+ nodestack[sp++] = parentp;
+ parentp = up;
+ upn = DEREFNODEPTR(up);
+@@ -541,6 +530,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
+ SETNODEPTR(pp,q);
+ /* Make sure pp is right if the case below tries to use
+ it. */
++ assert (sp < stacksize);
+ nodestack[sp++] = pp = LEFTPTR(q);
+ q = RIGHT(p);
+ }
+@@ -625,6 +615,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
+ SETLEFT(p,RIGHT(q));
+ SETRIGHT(q,p);
+ SETNODEPTR(pp,q);
++ assert (sp < stacksize);
+ nodestack[sp++] = pp = RIGHTPTR(q);
+ q = LEFT(p);
+ }
diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
index 9f3a3814d0..3ef2301191 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \
file://0020-fix-create-thread-failed-in-unprivileged-process-BZ-.patch \
file://0021-tests-Skip-2-qemu-tests-that-can-hang-in-oe-selftest.patch \
file://0022-Propagate-ffile-prefix-map-from-CFLAGS-to-ASFLAGS.patch \
+ file://0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch \
"
B = "${WORKDIR}/build-${TARGET_SYS}"
--
2.49.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] glibc: fix CVE-2026-19542
2026-09-03 17:03 [wrynose][PATCH] glibc: fix CVE-2026-19542 Harish.Sadineni
@ 2026-09-03 17:36 ` Adarsh Jagadish Kamini
2026-09-03 18:26 ` Yoann Congal
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Adarsh Jagadish Kamini @ 2026-09-03 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Harish.Sadineni, openembedded-core; +Cc: Sundeep.Kokkonda
On 9/3/26 19:03, Sadineni, Harish via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> From: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
>
> Allocate the maximum array sizes directly, instead of resizing
> the arrays as needed. This eliminates alloca usage from the
> function, and fixes the out-of-bounds accesses. The asserts
> guard against the bug coming back if the balancing of the tree
> turns out not to work correctly.
>
> Upstream-Status: Backport [https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3]
> CVE: CVE-2026-19542
>
> Reference:
> [1]https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-19542
> [2]https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34506
> [3]https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3
>
> Signed-off-by: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
> ---
> .../glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch | 98 +++++++++++++++++++
> meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 99 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000..d4b42c6ea4
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
> @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
> +From e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> +From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
> +Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:41:16 +0200
> +Subject: [PATCH] misc: Fix out-of-bounds array write in tdelete (bug 34506)
> +
> +Allocate the maximum array sizes directly, instead of resizing
> +the arrays as needed. This eliminates alloca usage from the
> +function, and fixes the out-of-bounds accesses. The asserts
> +guard against the bug coming back if the balancing of the tree
> +turns out not to work correctly.
> +
> +CVE: CVE-2025-19542
> +Upstream-Status: Backport [https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3]
> +
> +Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
> +Signed-off-by: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
> +---
> + misc/tsearch.c | 31 +++++++++++--------------------
> + 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> +
> +diff --git a/misc/tsearch.c b/misc/tsearch.c
> +index 9b2eb34b25..e517dfa712 100644
> +--- a/misc/tsearch.c
> ++++ b/misc/tsearch.c
> +@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
> + #include <assert.h>
> + #include <stdalign.h>
> + #include <stddef.h>
> ++#include <stdint.h>
> + #include <stdlib.h>
> + #include <string.h>
> + #include <search.h>
> +@@ -406,12 +407,13 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
> + int cmp;
> + node *rootp = (node *) vrootp;
> + node root, unchained;
> +- /* Stack of nodes so we remember the parents without recursion. It's
> +- _very_ unlikely that there are paths longer than 40 nodes. The tree
> +- would need to have around 250.000 nodes. */
> +- int stacksize = 40;
> ++ /* Stack of nodes so we remember the parents without recursion. The
> ++ stack size is a conservative approximation of the maximum height
> ++ of a red-black tree, based on size of the address space.
> ++ Actual numbers are closer to 57 (32 bit) and 117 (63 bit). */
> ++ enum { stacksize = 2 * UINTPTR_WIDTH };
> + int sp = 0;
> +- node **nodestack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
> ++ node *nodestack[stacksize];
> +
> + if (rootp == NULL)
> + return NULL;
> +@@ -424,14 +426,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
> + root = DEREFNODEPTR(rootp);
> + while ((cmp = (*compar) (key, root->key)) != 0)
> + {
> +- if (sp == stacksize)
> +- {
> +- node **newstack;
> +- stacksize += 20;
> +- newstack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
> +- nodestack = memcpy (newstack, nodestack, sp * sizeof (node *));
> +- }
> +-
> ++ assert (sp < stacksize);
> + nodestack[sp++] = rootp;
> + p = DEREFNODEPTR(rootp);
> + if (cmp < 0)
> +@@ -470,13 +465,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
> + node upn;
> + for (;;)
> + {
> +- if (sp == stacksize)
> +- {
> +- node **newstack;
> +- stacksize += 20;
> +- newstack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
> +- nodestack = memcpy (newstack, nodestack, sp * sizeof (node *));
> +- }
> ++ assert (sp < stacksize);
> + nodestack[sp++] = parentp;
> + parentp = up;
> + upn = DEREFNODEPTR(up);
> +@@ -541,6 +530,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
> + SETNODEPTR(pp,q);
> + /* Make sure pp is right if the case below tries to use
> + it. */
> ++ assert (sp < stacksize);
> + nodestack[sp++] = pp = LEFTPTR(q);
> + q = RIGHT(p);
> + }
> +@@ -625,6 +615,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
> + SETLEFT(p,RIGHT(q));
> + SETRIGHT(q,p);
> + SETNODEPTR(pp,q);
> ++ assert (sp < stacksize);
> + nodestack[sp++] = pp = RIGHTPTR(q);
> + q = LEFT(p);
> + }
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
> index 9f3a3814d0..3ef2301191 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \
> file://0020-fix-create-thread-failed-in-unprivileged-process-BZ-.patch \
> file://0021-tests-Skip-2-qemu-tests-that-can-hang-in-oe-selftest.patch \
> file://0022-Propagate-ffile-prefix-map-from-CFLAGS-to-ASFLAGS.patch \
> + file://0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch \
> "
> B = "${WORKDIR}/build-${TARGET_SYS}"
>
>
>
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#245036): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/245036
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/121072674/10182374
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [adarsh.jagadish.kamini@est.tech]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi,
AS far as I know, we don't fix glibc through a patch to
Openembedded-core. Please send a patch to original glibc project's 2.43
branch (or check their bug tracker to see if this is backported
already). Once merged, we maybe be able to update the recipe to point to
the latest 2.43 release.
I would like someone to verify the above, but as I see there are no CVE
backport patches in the recipe.
Thanks!
Adarsh Jagadish Kamini
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] [wrynose][PATCH] glibc: fix CVE-2026-19542
2026-09-03 17:36 ` [OE-core] " Adarsh Jagadish Kamini
@ 2026-09-03 18:26 ` Yoann Congal
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Yoann Congal @ 2026-09-03 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: adarsh.jagadish.kamini, Harish.Sadineni, openembedded-core
Cc: Sundeep.Kokkonda
On Thu Sep 3, 2026 at 7:36 PM CEST, Adarsh Jagadish Kamini via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On 9/3/26 19:03, Sadineni, Harish via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
>> From: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
>>
>> Allocate the maximum array sizes directly, instead of resizing
>> the arrays as needed. This eliminates alloca usage from the
>> function, and fixes the out-of-bounds accesses. The asserts
>> guard against the bug coming back if the balancing of the tree
>> turns out not to work correctly.
>>
>> Upstream-Status: Backport [https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3]
>> CVE: CVE-2026-19542
>>
>> Reference:
>> [1]https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2026-19542
>> [2]https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34506
>> [3]https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
>> ---
>> .../glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch | 98 +++++++++++++++++++
>> meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 99 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..d4b42c6ea4
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc/0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
>> +From e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> +From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
>> +Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:41:16 +0200
>> +Subject: [PATCH] misc: Fix out-of-bounds array write in tdelete (bug 34506)
>> +
>> +Allocate the maximum array sizes directly, instead of resizing
>> +the arrays as needed. This eliminates alloca usage from the
>> +function, and fixes the out-of-bounds accesses. The asserts
>> +guard against the bug coming back if the balancing of the tree
>> +turns out not to work correctly.
>> +
>> +CVE: CVE-2025-19542
>> +Upstream-Status: Backport [https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=patch;h=e2789c46e3bfdcd67a82bea9946b315c179e83d3]
>> +
>> +Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
>> +Signed-off-by: Harish Sadineni <Harish.Sadineni@windriver.com>
>> +---
>> + misc/tsearch.c | 31 +++++++++++--------------------
>> + 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>> +
>> +diff --git a/misc/tsearch.c b/misc/tsearch.c
>> +index 9b2eb34b25..e517dfa712 100644
>> +--- a/misc/tsearch.c
>> ++++ b/misc/tsearch.c
>> +@@ -85,6 +85,7 @@
>> + #include <assert.h>
>> + #include <stdalign.h>
>> + #include <stddef.h>
>> ++#include <stdint.h>
>> + #include <stdlib.h>
>> + #include <string.h>
>> + #include <search.h>
>> +@@ -406,12 +407,13 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
>> + int cmp;
>> + node *rootp = (node *) vrootp;
>> + node root, unchained;
>> +- /* Stack of nodes so we remember the parents without recursion. It's
>> +- _very_ unlikely that there are paths longer than 40 nodes. The tree
>> +- would need to have around 250.000 nodes. */
>> +- int stacksize = 40;
>> ++ /* Stack of nodes so we remember the parents without recursion. The
>> ++ stack size is a conservative approximation of the maximum height
>> ++ of a red-black tree, based on size of the address space.
>> ++ Actual numbers are closer to 57 (32 bit) and 117 (63 bit). */
>> ++ enum { stacksize = 2 * UINTPTR_WIDTH };
>> + int sp = 0;
>> +- node **nodestack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
>> ++ node *nodestack[stacksize];
>> +
>> + if (rootp == NULL)
>> + return NULL;
>> +@@ -424,14 +426,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
>> + root = DEREFNODEPTR(rootp);
>> + while ((cmp = (*compar) (key, root->key)) != 0)
>> + {
>> +- if (sp == stacksize)
>> +- {
>> +- node **newstack;
>> +- stacksize += 20;
>> +- newstack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
>> +- nodestack = memcpy (newstack, nodestack, sp * sizeof (node *));
>> +- }
>> +-
>> ++ assert (sp < stacksize);
>> + nodestack[sp++] = rootp;
>> + p = DEREFNODEPTR(rootp);
>> + if (cmp < 0)
>> +@@ -470,13 +465,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
>> + node upn;
>> + for (;;)
>> + {
>> +- if (sp == stacksize)
>> +- {
>> +- node **newstack;
>> +- stacksize += 20;
>> +- newstack = alloca (sizeof (node *) * stacksize);
>> +- nodestack = memcpy (newstack, nodestack, sp * sizeof (node *));
>> +- }
>> ++ assert (sp < stacksize);
>> + nodestack[sp++] = parentp;
>> + parentp = up;
>> + upn = DEREFNODEPTR(up);
>> +@@ -541,6 +530,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
>> + SETNODEPTR(pp,q);
>> + /* Make sure pp is right if the case below tries to use
>> + it. */
>> ++ assert (sp < stacksize);
>> + nodestack[sp++] = pp = LEFTPTR(q);
>> + q = RIGHT(p);
>> + }
>> +@@ -625,6 +615,7 @@ __tdelete (const void *key, void **vrootp, __compar_fn_t compar)
>> + SETLEFT(p,RIGHT(q));
>> + SETRIGHT(q,p);
>> + SETNODEPTR(pp,q);
>> ++ assert (sp < stacksize);
>> + nodestack[sp++] = pp = RIGHTPTR(q);
>> + q = LEFT(p);
>> + }
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
>> index 9f3a3814d0..3ef2301191 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/glibc/glibc_2.43.bb
>> @@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ SRC_URI = "${GLIBC_GIT_URI};branch=${SRCBRANCH};name=glibc \
>> file://0020-fix-create-thread-failed-in-unprivileged-process-BZ-.patch \
>> file://0021-tests-Skip-2-qemu-tests-that-can-hang-in-oe-selftest.patch \
>> file://0022-Propagate-ffile-prefix-map-from-CFLAGS-to-ASFLAGS.patch \
>> + file://0023-CVE-2026-19542.patch \
>> "
>> B = "${WORKDIR}/build-${TARGET_SYS}"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi,
> AS far as I know, we don't fix glibc through a patch to
> Openembedded-core. Please send a patch to original glibc project's 2.43
> branch (or check their bug tracker to see if this is backported
> already). Once merged, we maybe be able to update the recipe to point to
> the latest 2.43 release.
>
> I would like someone to verify the above, but as I see there are no CVE
> backport patches in the recipe.
>
> Thanks!
> Adarsh Jagadish Kamini
That's true. Glibc CVE fixes always come via the upgrade along the
branch. And I'd rather keep it that way.
Thanks!
--
Yoann Congal
Smile ECS
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-09-03 18:26 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-09-03 17:03 [wrynose][PATCH] glibc: fix CVE-2026-19542 Harish.Sadineni
2026-09-03 17:36 ` [OE-core] " Adarsh Jagadish Kamini
2026-09-03 18:26 ` Yoann Congal
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.