[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: wheezy update for libav

On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:29:59AM +0100, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
> > I looked into backporting the fixes for
> > 
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts/2016/09/msg00211.html
> > 
> > that the Mozilla people complained about from the 9 release branch to the
> > 0.8 release branch. It's entirely nontrivial since the commits that fix
> > the issue constitute a major refactoring. I'm about halfway into the
> > process and my intermediate result is failing many tests. It's unclear to
> > me at this point if the resulat is worth the trouble :-/
> Well, the issue looks important, and I'd like to see it fixed, but if
> you think it is not possible to do it without important risks of
> regressions, then we should maybe consider dropping it.
> However, I have to say I'm not very well informed about this issue; The
> libav bug tracker is just mentionning a potentially exploitable attempt
> to free a corrupted pointer. Does this issue has a CVE assigned yet ?

I don't know of a CVE for the issue.

In the meantime I have had an epiphany and found a simpler fix for the
issue after staring at the code during the refactoring backport. I'll
do some final tests and push it tomorrow.

> > > Let me know if I can speed up the process by preparing patches. If yes, please,
> > > mention the issues you are currently working on, so we avoid duplicate work.
> > > 
> > > [0] https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/libav
> > 
> > CVE-2016-7424:
> > 
> > I cannot reproduce the crash with 0.8, so Wheezy should not have a problem.
> I'd like to perform some tests before definitively marking libav 0.8 as
> unaffected in the tracker; could you quickly explain me how you attempted
> to reproduce it ?
> The affected code in 11.x is almost the same as in 0.8.

The reporter claims that it's specific to one clang version (3.8.1).
I have installed that clang version and will retry to reproduce the


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: