On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 09:53:05PM +0400, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > Hi > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 9:14 PM Michael Tokarev <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 7/26/26 20:07, Marc-André Lureau wrote: > > ...>> Unfortunately this (additional) fix does not mention the > > >> previous fix, so there's some confusion about which commit > > >> actually fixed this issue. It looks like the first fix was > > >> incomplete and this additional fix were needed. > > > > > > That's correct, we reused the same CVE > > > > > > Daniel P. Berrangé said on the issue: > > > We didn't release master yet. As long as we also didn't release any > > > stable branches that claimed to fix it, we could re-use it IMHO. > > > > Heh. This is exactly what actually happened - there were > > 2 stable releases on Jun-25 (v10.0.11 and v11.0.2) which > > contained the first half. Now there are 2 more stable > > releases from Jul-24 which contains the second half. > > > > Unfortunately I haven't noticed this duplicated CVE#, > > or else I'd add a note to the second half in the stable > > pick-ups. > > > > I know you don't like me rushing things to the stable > > series, and this is an example why this might be bad. > > Fortunately this is not a regression, at least. And > > usually security fixes come in faster anyway. Ohwell.. > > I'm sorry to disappoint you further. > > for the record, I do appreciate your work, and I make mistake too :) > Next time I'll check if a release was made already with the CVE#
Or we just declare a strict "never reuse a CVE once a patch is merged to master" rule. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com ~~ https://hachyderm.io/@berrange :| |: https://libvirt.org ~~ https://entangle-photo.org :| |: https://pixelfed.art/berrange ~~ https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
