Re: [patch 4/8] [PATCH] Update in-kernel zlib routines

* Peter Osterlund ([email protected]) wrote:
> Chris Wright <[email protected]> writes:
> > a) http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-gnu-utils/1999-06/msg00183.html
> 
> Why does this 6 year old bug have to be fixed in the 2.6.12 stable
> series? Doesn't the patch violate this stable series rule?
> 
>  - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
>    problem..." type thing.)
> 
> Maybe the motivation was just missing from the patch description?

These can manifest as possible overflow (1st one, given CAN-2005-2458),
or NULL deref (2nd one given CAN-2005-2459), which could have possible
security consequences.

thanks,
-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [patch 0/8] -stable review
    • From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
  • [patch 4/8] [PATCH] Update in-kernel zlib routines
    • From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
  • Re: [patch 4/8] [PATCH] Update in-kernel zlib routines
    • From: Peter Osterlund <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 4/8] [PATCH] Update in-kernel zlib routines
• Next by Date: Re: allow the load to grow upto its cpu_power (was Re: [Patch] don't kick ALB in the presence of pinned task)
• Previous by thread: Re: [patch 4/8] [PATCH] Update in-kernel zlib routines
• Next by thread: [patch 5/8] Check input buffer size in zisofs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]