On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:21:56AM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 05:47:10PM -0600, William Hubbs wrote:
> > All,
> > 
> > these packages have been masked in the tree for months - years with no
> > signs of fixes.
> > 
> > I am particularly concerned about packages with known security
> > vulnerabilities staying in the main tree masked. If people want to keep
> > using those packages, I don't want to stop them, but packages like this
> > should not be in the main tree.
> > 
> > # Mask gentoo-sources ebuilds that are affected with security bug 
> > CVE-2014-3153.
> > #
> > # Pinkie Pie discovered an issue in the futex subsystem that allows a
> > # local user to gain ring 0 control via the futex syscall. An
> > # unprivileged user could use this flaw to crash the kernel (resulting
> > # in denial of service) or for privilege escalation.
> > #
> > # https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2014-3153
> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.2.58-r2
> > ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.4.90
> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.4.91
> > ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.10.40
> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.10.41
> > ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.12.20
> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.12.21
> > ~sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.14.4
> > =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-3.14.5

Mike,

since you responded here, what do you think about this p.mask entry?
Should we keep these in the tree?

> 
> Hello,
> 
> What's the feeling for how long a package.mask entry should stay in the
> file in the event that a package can cause physical damage to a user's 
> system.
> 
> For certain types of hardware, kernel 3.17.0 could cause some
> filesystem corruption. Of couse, 3.17.0 is out of the tree but when is
> it appropiate to say that a user has had enough time to upgarde their
> systems and we can remove this entry?

(qa hat off here, just a question)

I'm a bit confused here.
If you have a specific p.mask entry for 3.17.0 and 3.17.0 is out of the
tree, isn't that p.mask entry invalid now? If so, go ahead and remove
or adjust the entry.

William

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to