On Fri, 17 Aug 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Christian Kujau
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Kees Cook via Jfs-discussion wrote:
> >> Bart Massey reported what turned out to be a usercopy whitelist false
> >> positive in JFS when symlink contents exceeded 128 bytes.
On Fri, 17 Aug 2018, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Christian Kujau
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Kees Cook via Jfs-discussion wrote:
> >> Bart Massey reported what turned out to be a usercopy whitelist false
> >> positive in JFS when symlink contents exceeded 128 bytes.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Kees Cook via Jfs-discussion wrote:
>> Bart Massey reported what turned out to be a usercopy whitelist false
>> positive in JFS when symlink contents exceeded 128 bytes. The inline
>> inode data (i_inline) is actually
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Christian Kujau wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Kees Cook via Jfs-discussion wrote:
>> Bart Massey reported what turned out to be a usercopy whitelist false
>> positive in JFS when symlink contents exceeded 128 bytes. The inline
>> inode data (i_inline) is actually
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Kees Cook via Jfs-discussion wrote:
> Bart Massey reported what turned out to be a usercopy whitelist false
> positive in JFS when symlink contents exceeded 128 bytes. The inline
> inode data (i_inline) is actually designed to overflow into the "extended
So, this may be a
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018, Kees Cook via Jfs-discussion wrote:
> Bart Massey reported what turned out to be a usercopy whitelist false
> positive in JFS when symlink contents exceeded 128 bytes. The inline
> inode data (i_inline) is actually designed to overflow into the "extended
So, this may be a
6 matches
Mail list logo