Re: CVE-2009-4537

Re: CVE-2009-4537

[David Miller]

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:34:07 -0700 (PDT)

> From: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:21:00 -0400
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> CVE-2009-4537 has been disclosed without any upstream activity for a
>> while now. Discussion about the issue dried up in January [0], and a
>> patch had been proposed [1], but no arguments were seen either for or
>> against it. Note that redhat has already shipped that in their various
>> kernel security updates.  Would it make sense to merge those changes
>> officially?
> 
> A different version of the fix went into the tree.

Ignore me, that was a fix for a different problem.

I was waiting for Francois to come up with a cleaner fix
but he stopped working on it, so yes I should put in
the fix you mention or something similar.

Neil, can you formally submit a version of the r8169
CVE for upstream?

Thanks.

Re: CVE-2009-4537

[Neil Horman]

On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:36:00AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > From: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:21:00 -0400
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> CVE-2009-4537 has been disclosed without any upstream activity for a
> >> while now. Discussion about the issue dried up in January [0], and a
> >> patch had been proposed [1], but no arguments were seen either for or
> >> against it. Note that redhat has already shipped that in their various
> >> kernel security updates.  Would it make sense to merge those changes
> >> officially?
> > 
> > A different version of the fix went into the tree.
> 
> Ignore me, that was a fix for a different problem.
> 
> I was waiting for Francois to come up with a cleaner fix
> but he stopped working on it, so yes I should put in
> the fix you mention or something similar.
> 
> Neil, can you formally submit a version of the r8169
> CVE for upstream?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
Absolutley, I'll review the CVE text and my origional patch tomorrow morning,
and submit the official patch tomorrow afternoon.

Thanks!
Neil

Re: CVE-2009-4537

[Ben Hoyt]

Hi netdev,

We're working on some TCP networking stuff where the key is low
latency -- in other words, we don't really care about data throughput,
but rather getting the end-to-end TCP packet transfer time down.

I know there's quite a few networking folks and kernel hackers on this
list, so I thought I'd see if anyone was interested (or knows someone
who might be interested) in doing a few hours of consultancy work to
give us some pointers on this. I'm a competent programmer, but
kernel-level network programming is not my area of expertise.

I'm happy to receive some pointers via this list -- and others might
benefit from that too -- but I'm also keen on some dedicated
consultancy hours if anyone's interested.

Thanks,
Ben.

Re: CVE-2009-4537

[David Miller]

First, please don't hijack an unrelated thread to start talking about
something different.

Second, the mailing lists at vger.kernel.org are not for making
employment of consultancy offers.

Thanks.