On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 03:35:02PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Greg KH <gre...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:09:58PM -0400, Eric Paris wrote: >> >> From: Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> >> >> >> >> Fixes an easy DoS and possible information disclosure. >> >> >> >> This does nothing about the broken state of x32 auditing. >> >> >> >> eparis: If the admin has enabled auditd and has specifically loaded audit >> >> rules. This bug has been around since before git. Wow... >> >> >> >> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org >> >> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> >> >> Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <epa...@redhat.com> >> >> --- >> >> kernel/auditsc.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++--------- >> >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >> > >> > Did this patch get dropped somewhere? Isn't it a valid bugfix, or did I >> > miss a later conversation about this? >> >> Hmm. It seems that it didn't make it into Linus' tree. Crap. >> >> IMO we need some kind of real tracking system for issues reported to >> security@. > > That seems to be my mbox at times :) > > But yes, having something "real" might be good if the load gets higher, > right now it's so low that my "sweep pending security patches" task > usually catches anything pending, which is rare.
How does one get added to the security@ alias? We've been carrying this patch in Fedora for a bit now. I'd be happy to help track things given we get distro security bug reports and such. josh -- Linux-audit mailing list Linux-audit@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-audit
