Bug 204845
| Summary: | CVE-2006-4146 GDB buffer overflow | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Josh Bressers <bressers> |
| Component: | gdb | Assignee: | Elena Zannoni <ezannoni> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 5 | CC: | aoliva, cagney, ezannoni, jjohnstn, mattdm |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | source=vendorsec,reported=20060815,impact=low,public=20060831 | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-09-04 06:18:10 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Josh Bressers
2006-08-31 20:51:22 UTC
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 203881 *** "stacki <= 0" needs to be changed to "stacki < 0", since stacki==0 is a valid state. Can bug #203881 be un-protected now? Thanks. No, bug 203881 has no useful public information in it, it will remain a private bug. This bug was created to move the relevant public information from that bug to this one. In which case this really shouldn't be marked as a duplicate, should it? Thanks for clarifying. It's frustrating to run against protected bugs when investigating issues. I understand that many have to remain that way, but sometimes they seem to get protected and left so beyond the time when secrecy is useful, leading to mysterious dead ends when I'm trying to figure out relevant open issues for Fedora Legacy. (In reply to comment #2) > "stacki <= 0" needs to be changed to "stacki < 0", since stacki==0 is a valid state. I posted this replacement for the patch in the original advisory to a different bug #: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=135360 It's been a while since the advisory, but I believe that 0 isn't valid because the stack should start at > 0 and movement "above" that point in the stack is invalid. |