Collin, one fact so you do not have to guess at it. That patch was written with model assistance. It is not a clean-authored diff and your reading of the copyright position is the right one, so writing your own from the description is the shortest path to a fix. Use my analysis and the reproducer freely; the credit for the defect itself is Vahagn Vardanian's.
No copyright assignment is on offer from me today, so please do not wait on one. If it helps, I will test whatever you and the maintainers settle on against the desynchronised-map case and report back in one paragraph. Apex Security Research [email protected] Sent with Proton Mail secure email. On Friday, November 6th, 2026 at 9:40 AM, Collin Funk <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > Pavel Cahyna <[email protected]> writes: > > > I saw your oss-security post and thank you a lot for the analysis. > > > > While the report contained a ton of slop, this part was unfortunately > > real (although written in a too grandiose way, i.e. claiming a RCE). I > > let AI generate a reproducer (while AI reports are often slop, it is > > usually pretty good at writing reproducers) and verified it works before > > assigning the CVE. See: > > /tmp/test_extract$ tar -tf ~/miscsrc/tar/exploit.tar > > .cache > > .gitignore > > /tmp/test_extract$ tar -tvf ~/miscsrc/tar/exploit.tar > > -rw-r--r-- 0/0 4096 1970-01-01 01:00 .cache > > -rw-r--r-- 0/0 1024 1970-01-01 01:00 .gitignore > > /tmp/test_extract$ tar -xvf ~/miscsrc/tar/exploit.tar > > .cache > > Makefile > > /tmp/test_extract$ ls -A > > .cache Makefile > > Thanks! By the way, I realize now my previous message may have sounded > rude/accusatory. I've always had good experiences with Red Hat's > security team, so I assumed you'd verified it and did not mean to imply > otherwise, but I wanted to confirm. > > I've also noticed LLMs quickly claiming RCEs. In this case, I disagree > with that because it requires you to invoke 'make' on an unknown > Makefile. In a bug-free world, a malicious maintainer could easily just > write a malicious Makefile and distribute it, and that very obviously > wouldn't be considered an RCE. I assume that is similar to your > rationale as well. > > Regarding your other comments on LLMs, I certainly agree. We signed GNU > coreutils for Anthropic's OSS scanner. I pretty much just look at the > reproducers and maybe the first paragraph of the summary, instead of > wasting my time reading the overly long essays accompanying them. That > has been a pretty effective strategy so far, at least. > > I suspect Sergey and Paul will want to accept an LLM-generated patch for > copyright purposes. I'll see if I can write one based on the problem > description this weekend for them to review. > > Thank you both for the report and analysis, > Collin >
