On (Mon) 17 Nov 2014 [12:52:59], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 04:08:58PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > On (Mon) 17 Nov 2014 [12:32:57], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:06:38PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote: > > > > On (Wed) 12 Nov 2014 [11:44:35], Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > This patchset fixes CVE-2014-7840: invalid > > > > > migration stream can cause arbitrary qemu memory > > > > > overwrite. > > > > > First patch includes the minimal fix for the issue. > > > > > Follow-up patches on top add extra checking to reduce the > > > > > chance this kind of bug recurs. > > > > > > > > > > Note: these are already (tentatively-pending review) > > > > > queued in my tree, so only review/ack > > > > > is necessary. > > > > > > > > Why not let this go in via the migration tree? > > > > > > Well I Cc'd Juan and David, so if they had a problem with this, I expect > > > they'd complain. David acked so I assume it's ok. Since I wasted time > > > testing this and have it on my tree already, might as well just merge. > > > > IMO asking as a courtesy would've been better than just stating it. > > Right, thanks for reminding me. > > BTW, there is actually a good reason to special-case it: it's a CVE fix, > which I handle. So they stay on my private queue and are passed > to vendors so vendors can fix downstreams, until making fix public is > cleared with all reporters and vendors. > After reporting is cleared, I try to collect acks but don't normally route > patches through separate queues - that would make it harder to > track the status which we need for CVEs.
Patch is public, so all of this doesn't really matter. But: involving maintainers in their areas, even if the patch is embargoed, should be a pre-requisite. I'm not sure if we're doing that, but please do that so patches get a proper review from the maintainers. > I guess this specific one actually is well contained, so it could go in > through a specific tree if it had to. In fact, it is still possible if > Juan says he prefers it so: I only expect to send pull request around > tomorrow or the day after that. I'm sure we prefer migration patches go through the migration tree. Also, this week I'm looking at the migration queue -- it's an unofficial split of maintenance duties between Juan and me while we're still trying to find out what works best. > > > Which reminds me: we really should have someone in MAINTAINERS > > > for migration-related files. > > > > There is, since last week. > > That's good. I see Juan is listed there now, so all's well. But that was well-known anyway :-) Amit