From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34677) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSiTL-0007sN-OO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:04:44 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSiTJ-00085e-2S for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:04:43 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33320) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gSiTI-00084e-TJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2018 08:04:41 -0500 References: <20181129121449.4322-1-jasowang@redhat.com> <44516b60-dafd-70e3-1638-ea38a804c8a4@redhat.com> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:04:30 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V2 for 3.1 0/4] Fix possible OOB during queuing packets List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: P J P , Eric Blake Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, mst@redhat.com, liq3ea@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com On 2018/11/30 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=885:18, P J P wrote: > +-- On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Eric Blake wrote --+ > | How important is this for 3.1? We've missed -rc3. Is this CVE quali= ty > | because of a guest being able to cause mayhem by intentionally gettin= g into > | this condition (in which case, we need it, as well as a CVE assigned)= ? Yes, malicious guest can do this, but only with some specific setup e.g=20 with hubports. > Is it > | pre-existing in 3.0 at which point waiting for 4.0 is no worse off th= an what > | we already are? > > It is a revised patch to fix 'CVE-2018-17963' issue. Earlier patch was > included in -rc0. > > $ git tag --contains 1592a9947036d60dde5404204a5d45975133caf5 > v3.1.0-rc0 > v3.1.0-rc1 > v3.1.0-rc2 > v3.1.0-rc3 > > Thank you. > -- > Prasad J Pandit / Red Hat Product Security Team > 47AF CE69 3A90 54AA 9045 1053 DD13 3D32 FE5B 041F > Yes, it could be treated as a follow up fixes for CVE-2018-17963. I=20 think we need this. Thanks