Re: [PATCH 1/2] auditsc: audit_krule mask accesses need bounds checking

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 09:04:16PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 05:51:37PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> [cc list trimmed, security@ added]
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 07:35:57PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But yes, having something "real" might be good if the load gets higher,
> >> >> > right now it's so low that my "sweep pending security patches" task
> >> >> > usually catches anything pending, which is rare.
> >> >>
> >> >> How does one get added to the security@ alias?  We've been carrying
> >> >> this patch in Fedora for a bit now.  I'd be happy to help track things
> >> >> given we get distro security bug reports and such.
> >> >
> >> > Just ask on the security@ alias to be added and we can take it from
> >> > there.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Would it make sense for there to be someone on the security list who
> >> can assign CVE numbers?
> >
> > I'm pretty sure we have that already.
> 
> Let me rephrase the question:
> 
> Would it make sense for someone on the security list to assign CVE numbers?

If we cared about CVE numbers, maybe :)

Seriously, there are people on the security alias that can get CVE
numbers assigned if needed, so that should not be an issue.  It's
happened in the past from what I can recall.

thanks,

greg k-h