From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751484AbaFJEOD (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:14:03 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:60059 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750886AbaFJEOB (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jun 2014 00:14:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 21:14:00 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Josh Boyer , Linus Torvalds , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "security@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] auditsc: audit_krule mask accesses need bounds checking Message-ID: <20140610041400.GA28020@kroah.com> References: <1401332999-15167-1-git-send-email-eparis@redhat.com> <20140609223057.GB18475@kroah.com> <20140609224645.GA8113@kroah.com> <20140610003142.GA20728@kroah.com> <20140610025715.GA24314@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 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 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 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