From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44932) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqJiH-0002JJ-Ke for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:39:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqJiF-0001C1-Ua for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:39:17 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50113) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqJiF-0001Bq-O5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:39:15 -0500 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id sAHAdEl1002754 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 05:39:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:08:58 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20141117103858.GC24729@grmbl.mre> References: <1415785203-26938-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20141117063638.GB10401@grmbl.mre> <20141117103257.GI20133@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141117103257.GI20133@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] migration: fix CVE-2014-7840 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com On (Mon) 17 Nov 2014 [12:32:57], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:06:38PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > On (Wed) 12 Nov 2014 [11:44:35], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > This patchset fixes CVE-2014-7840: invalid > > > migration stream can cause arbitrary qemu memory > > > overwrite. > > > First patch includes the minimal fix for the issue. > > > Follow-up patches on top add extra checking to reduce the > > > chance this kind of bug recurs. > > > > > > Note: these are already (tentatively-pending review) > > > queued in my tree, so only review/ack > > > is necessary. > > > > Why not let this go in via the migration tree? > > Well I Cc'd Juan and David, so if they had a problem with this, I expect > they'd complain. David acked so I assume it's ok. Since I wasted time > testing this and have it on my tree already, might as well just merge. IMO asking as a courtesy would've been better than just stating it. > Which reminds me: we really should have someone in MAINTAINERS > for migration-related files. There is, since last week. Amit