Patch for Jessie version attached. Patch is applied by hand from
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-April/msg00339.html
I am a bit concerned this patch only patches the virDomainGetHostname
function and not the virDomainGetTime function, while the tests (which I
suspect are not run i
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 05:50:46PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Patch for Jessie version attached. Patch is applied by hand from
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2019-April/msg00339.html
I don't think this is needed for jessie since the corresponding function
in qemu was implemented
Guido Günther writes:
> I don't think this is needed for jessie since the corresponding function
> in qemu was implemented in 4.8.0.
Sounds like it won't hurt to leave this in, in any case...
> qemuDomainGetTime is present in 1.2.9 and uses the guest agent so it's
> affected as well. The corres
Brian May writes:
> Ok, so it does sound like I should make this change too.
Updated patch attached.
--
Brian May
diff -Nru libvirt-1.2.9/debian/changelog libvirt-1.2.9/debian/changelog
--- libvirt-1.2.9/debian/changelog 2018-03-13 06:51:52.0 +1100
+++ libvirt-1.2.9/debian/changelog 20
Brian May writes:
> + virCheckDomainReturn(dom, -1);
> ++virCheckReadOnlyGoto(domain->conn->flags, error);
That is obviously an error. Variable here is called "dom" not
"domain". Have fixed this in my version.
--
Brian May
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 05:16:47PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Guido Günther writes:
>
> > I don't think this is needed for jessie since the corresponding function
> > in qemu was implemented in 4.8.0.
>
> Sounds like it won't hurt to leave this in, in any case...
>
> > qemuDomainGetTime is prese
Moritz Mühlenhoff writes:
> We're tracking at as it's currently assigned by MITRE and it's their usual
> practice to split out secondary angles to a separate CVE ID. As such, you
> should rather reach out to them via https://cveform.mitre.org and request
> a separate ID for the part that affects
Moritz Mühlenhoff writes:
> We're tracking at as it's currently assigned by MITRE and it's their usual
> practice to split out secondary angles to a separate CVE ID. As such, you
> should rather reach out to them via https://cveform.mitre.org and request
> a separate ID for the part that affects