On Mon, Dec 25, 2006 at 01:11:56PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Has CVE-2006-5648 been addressed for the current linux-2.6 version?
Not completely. > Here's what I've found out about this bug so far: Thanks for researching this. > NOTE: Some new futex-related system calls need arch-specific support > NOTE: routines, or they can lead to unkillable userspace processes. > NOTE: The following git commits add futex_atomic_cmpxchg_inatomic > NOTE: implementations. The initial implementation contained code > NOTE: for amd64 and i386. Other implementations were added here: > NOTE: c7fed9d75074f7c243ec8ff2c55d04de2839a6f6 (sparc64, before 2.6.19) Already included (part of 2.6.18.3) > NOTE: 69588298188b40ed7f75c98a6fd328d82f23ca21 (powerpc, before 2.6.18) As you note, already in 2.6.18 > NOTE: a192dc16000241dc02990a36b6830839b73c44de (ia64, before 2.6.19) Note there, but (as you note) also not wired > NOTE: 342a0497c23c278633f8674ab62f71e5049b7080 (parisc, before 2.6.19) Already included in hppa.patch. > NOTE: Expoitability depends on whether the syscall is actually wired, > NOTE: which seems to be the case for everything but ia64 and maybe arm. I don't see wiring for alpha, m68k, mips, or mipsel in our 2.6.18 either - do you? s390 has both wiring and implementation, so it should be safe. The only outstanding hole I can see is sparc32 - it includes the generic futex.h which does not implement these functions. Do you agree? -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
