Speaking with code [LWN.net]

Speaking with code

Posted Jul 25, 2009 12:40 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: Speaking with code by spender
Parent article: Quotes of the week

I'm curious: since they've said they don't think it's a bug (more an
expected tradeoff: if you run SELinux without useful policy this is what
you get, and no, I don't agree with that either), why would *they* give it
a CVE?

(Log in to post comments)

Speaking with code

Posted Jul 25, 2009 12:53 UTC (Sat) by spender (subscriber, #23067) [Link]

Well, perhaps because they asked me to cancel the CVE request I put in (which I still haven't gotten a response from) so that they would submit their own:

Brad Spengler wrote:
>> Let me get back to you on this.
>
> I've contacted the relevant people to request a CVE for the issue, as
> the previous bypass of mmap_min_addr was given a CVE back in 2007; this
> should be no different.

Thanks Brad.

Can you cancel the request? I will assign one (faster), and provide you
with the proper credits in the errata.

-Brad