From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists1p.gnu.org (lists1p.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9D4C606A326 for ; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 10:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=AXxqTdE/ Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xPHE4-0007XF-IL; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 05:31:19 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists1p.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xPHDy-0007Wt-P9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 05:31:10 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.129.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1xPHDx-000421-1b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 05:31:10 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1793961067; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=97ooXZ5oKgPywm3VoqC3kRdDRxfwf2RZk5/17zup7tw=; b=AXxqTdE/hbgk3tSaTxWWdUeoo6n3JlpG5K9+d9SH62c2sFpC4OA5VMcK5SOMl6Z35Ze51M BNiqtviYPiyMJQ6duIP51MMAB8UaRKXW3ETKHkzyT5GKv1GTJ3ZbQsISKlf4ua8dNM0unM FiQ+VnHu8wHGEDtN7DSSAk7QEcgb+w0= Received: from mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-9-EeUfFJSdOlWBvVpn6rM31g-1; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 05:31:01 -0500 X-MC-Unique: EeUfFJSdOlWBvVpn6rM31g-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: EeUfFJSdOlWBvVpn6rM31g_1793961060 Received: from mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.12]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-05.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E908195604C; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 10:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (headnet04.pony-001.prod.iad2.dc.redhat.com [10.2.32.116]) by mx-prod-int-03.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DF7E1956087; Fri, 6 Nov 2026 10:30:57 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2026 10:30:54 +0000 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Peter Maydell Cc: Michael Tokarev , Oleg Drokin , qemu-devel , QEMU Stable Subject: Re: fixes for stable qemu series Message-ID: References: X-Archived-By: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.4.3 (2026-10-09) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.12 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.129.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: 5 X-Spam_score: 0.5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam_report: (0.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_SBL_CSS=3.335, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: qemu development List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on aws-us-west-2-korg-listserv-alma10-1 On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 10:17:02AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 6 Nov 2026 at 09:22, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 12:15:06PM +0300, Michael Tokarev wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > What's the way you use to find these patches, with security impact or not? > > > > > > I usually quickly screen all new commits in the master branch, and often > > > catch things which aren't marked for-stable, - not everything of interest > > > is marked as such. I also tend to remind the maintainers about these > > > markings. But my resources here are limited, I can't try to understand > > > every patch, even description of it. > > > > > > How do you perform a security review? > > > > FWIW, with our new security triage process, we should be fairly > > reliably getting issues in gitlab tagged with CVE::Assigned, if > > they have been accepted as an in-scope security issue and had a > > CVE assigned. > > I think in this case we're talking about #4802 (confidential), > and the problem is that the commits in question were not given > a CVE or tagged for stable, because it wasn't realised at the time > that they were fixing a bug. Ah ok, and those commits in master pre-dated our new CVE workflow. In this kind of situation where we miss security implications initially, if the flaw is considered significant enough, we could potentially retrospectively request to assign a CVE for an already merged fix. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :|