On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:46AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> > It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate t
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:46AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> > It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate the buffer for
>> > relocation copies. This could lead to hea
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 09:07:46AM +, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate the buffer for
> > relocation copies. This could lead to heap writing overflows.
> >
> > CVE-2013-0913
> >
> > v3: col
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> It is possible to wrap the counter used to allocate the buffer for
> relocation copies. This could lead to heap writing overflows.
>
> CVE-2013-0913
>
> v3: collapse test, improve comment
> v2: move check into validate_exec_list
>
> Si
