lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: CVE-2006-3468: which patch to use?
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> While going through patches for 2.6.16.x, I stumbled over the following
> regarding the "NFS export of ext2/ext3" security vulnerabilities (the
> ext3 one is CVE-2006-3468, I don't whether there's a number for the
> ext2 one):
>
> There are three patches available:
> have-ext2-reject-file-handles-with-bad-inode-numbers-early.patch
> have-ext3-reject-file-handles-with-bad-inode-numbers-early.patch
> ext3-avoid-triggering-ext3_error-on-bad-nfs-file-handle.patch
>
> The first two patches are except for a s/ext2/ext3/ identical.
>
> The two ext3 patches fix the same issue in slightly different ways.
>
> It seems there was already some agreement that the first of the two ext3
> patches should be preferred due to being more the same as the ext2 patch
> (see [1] and followups).
>
> But the only patch that is applied in 2.6.18-rc4 (and in 2.6.17.9) is
> the ext3 patch that is _not_ identical to the ext2 one.
>
> Is it the correct solution to revert this ext3 patch in both 2.6.18-rc
> and 2.6.17 and to apply the other two patches?
>
> cu
> Adrian
>
> BTW: I've attached all three patches.
>
> [1] http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/4/192

IMO the first two should be used; i.e. those that add ext[23]_get_dentry().

-Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-08-21 00:33    [W:0.098 / U:0.816 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site