From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50772) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqKAI-0005rg-EE for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:08:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqKAA-0002KN-83 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:08:14 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51444) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqKAA-0002KJ-0E for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:08:06 -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 sAHB85PO019183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 06:08:05 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 16:37:50 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20141117110750.GD24729@grmbl.mre> References: <1415785203-26938-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20141117063638.GB10401@grmbl.mre> <20141117103257.GI20133@redhat.com> <20141117103858.GC24729@grmbl.mre> <20141117105259.GA20683@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141117105259.GA20683@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 [12:52:59], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:08:58PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > 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. > > Right, thanks for reminding me. > > BTW, there is actually a good reason to special-case it: it's a CVE fix, > which I handle. So they stay on my private queue and are passed > to vendors so vendors can fix downstreams, until making fix public is > cleared with all reporters and vendors. > After reporting is cleared, I try to collect acks but don't normally route > patches through separate queues - that would make it harder to > track the status which we need for CVEs. Patch is public, so all of this doesn't really matter. But: involving maintainers in their areas, even if the patch is embargoed, should be a pre-requisite. I'm not sure if we're doing that, but please do that so patches get a proper review from the maintainers. > I guess this specific one actually is well contained, so it could go in > through a specific tree if it had to. In fact, it is still possible if > Juan says he prefers it so: I only expect to send pull request around > tomorrow or the day after that. I'm sure we prefer migration patches go through the migration tree. Also, this week I'm looking at the migration queue -- it's an unofficial split of maintenance duties between Juan and me while we're still trying to find out what works best. > > > Which reminds me: we really should have someone in MAINTAINERS > > > for migration-related files. > > > > There is, since last week. > > That's good. I see Juan is listed there now, so all's well. But that was well-known anyway :-) Amit