On Sun, Jan 07, 2007 at 03:35:21AM -0500, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 23:25:17 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> > There's already a CVE number for
> > "i386: save/restore eflags in context switch".
> >
> > Are there also CVE numbers for the equivalent x86_64 patch and
> > "x86_64: fix ia32 syscall count"?
>
> Sorry, my Web access is broken for now so I can't check, but I believe
> that CVE number is for a different, older problem.
>
> So AFAIK there are no CVE numbers for anything I sent (but there
> probably should be.) Generic Linux kernel developers don't have
> a CVE representative, so we depend on vendors to assign numbers
> and sometimes they don't.
I asked on vendor-sec and got CVE-2006-5755 for the x86_64 equivalent of
CVE-2006-5173, but none for the syscall count issue.
The latter is IMHO OK since "local user can spam syslog" is really
borderline - there are simply too many DoS possibilities for local
users.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
