On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 01:29:15PM -0500, Mike Pagano wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:11:32AM -0600, William Hubbs wrote: > > 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, > > > > # > > > > # 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? > > William, > > At what point do we not care about users who have not upgraded and will > miss this security message? I would say that's more up to you as the maintainer, but put something to the affect in the mask comment.
# This mask will be removed <whenever> William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
