Re: [PATCH V2] limit minixfs printks on corrupted dir i_size, CVE-2006-6058

Bodo Eggert wrote: > Warning: I'm only looking at the patch. > > You are supposed to print an error message for a user, not to write in a > chat window to a 1337 script kiddie. OK, you just matched the current style, > and your patch is IMHO OK for a quick security fix, but: > > - Security

Re: [PATCH V2] limit minixfs printks on corrupted dir i_size, CVE-2006-6058

Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This attempts to address CVE-2006-6058 > http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-6058 > > first reported at http://projects.info-pull.com/mokb/MOKB-17-11-2006.html > > Essentially a corrupted minix dir inode reporting a very large >

[PATCH V2] limit minixfs printks on corrupted dir i_size, CVE-2006-6058

Perhaps this is simpler, and preferable. Thanks to adilger for reminding me about printk_ratelimit. :) This attempts to address CVE-2006-6058 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-6058 first reported at http://projects.info-pull.com/mokb/MOKB-17-11-2006.html

[PATCH V2] limit minixfs printks on corrupted dir i_size, CVE-2006-6058

Perhaps this is simpler, and preferable. Thanks to adilger for reminding me about printk_ratelimit. :) This attempts to address CVE-2006-6058 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-6058 first reported at http://projects.info-pull.com/mokb/MOKB-17-11-2006.html

Re: [PATCH V2] limit minixfs printks on corrupted dir i_size, CVE-2006-6058

Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This attempts to address CVE-2006-6058 http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-6058 first reported at http://projects.info-pull.com/mokb/MOKB-17-11-2006.html Essentially a corrupted minix dir inode reporting a very large i_size will

Re: [PATCH V2] limit minixfs printks on corrupted dir i_size, CVE-2006-6058

Bodo Eggert wrote: Warning: I'm only looking at the patch. You are supposed to print an error message for a user, not to write in a chat window to a 1337 script kiddie. OK, you just matched the current style, and your patch is IMHO OK for a quick security fix, but: - Security fixes