On 210226 1814, P J P wrote:
> Hello Alex,
>
> On Thursday, 25 February, 2021, 10:00:33 pm IST, Alexander Bulekov
> wrote:
> On 210225 1128, Alexander Bulekov wrote:
> > On 210225 1931, P J P wrote:
> > > +-- On Wed, 24 Feb 2021, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote --+
> > > | On 2/24/21 2:17 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > | > On 2021/2/24 6:11 下午, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > | >> IIUC the guest could trigger an infinite loop and brick the emulated
> > > | >> device model. Likely exhausting the stack, so either SEGV by
> > > corruption
> > > | >> or some ENOMEM?
> > > | >
> > > | > Yes.
> > > | >>
> > > | >> Since this is guest triggerable, shouldn't we contact qemu-security@
> > > list
> > > | >> and ask for a CVE for this issue, so distributions can track the
> > > patches
> > > | >> to backport in their stable releases? (it seems to be within the KVM
> > > | >> devices boundary).
> > > | >
> > > | >
> > > | > That's the plan. I discussed this with Prasad before and he promise to
> > > | > ask CVE for this.
> > >
> > > 'CVE-2021-3416' is assigned to this issue by Red Hat Inc.
> >
> > What is the difference with CVE-2021-20255 and CVE-2021-20257 ? Aren't
> > those just manifestations of this bug for the e1000 and the eepro100
> > devices
>
> * You mean manifestations of the dam re-entrancy issue?
>
Ah I got confused - those other CVEs don't seem to be related to
loopback.
-Alex
> * They have separate CVEs because they are fixed individually.
>
>
> Thank you.
> ---
> -P J P
> http://feedmug.com
