From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: CVE-2009-4537 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:50:46 -0400 Message-ID: <20100329005046.GA2157@localhost.localdomain> References: <20100327142100.38d21565.michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com> <20100327.103407.260084965.davem@davemloft.net> <20100327.103600.246539458.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:52430 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755497Ab0C2Au5 (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:50:57 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100327.103600.246539458.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:36:00AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: David Miller > Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:34:07 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: Michael Gilbert > > 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