[Bug 1124500] CVE-2014-5116 cairo: NULL pointer dereference in cairo_image_surface_get_data()
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124500
--- Comment #5 from Siddharth Sharma <sisharma(a)redhat.com> ---
Explanation:
Wireshark crashed before it hits the function in cairo because the the
higher value inside the text box in wireshark -> Statistics -> IP Addresses or
IP Destination cause the window to be painted much bigger than the Main X
Window
and it crashes which is right on part of Window Manager Implementation and X
Window System. It doesnt affect linux system as descrbed in the CVE-2014-5116
assigned.Wireshark should be sanitizing the input from:
wireshark -> Statistics -> IP Destination
wireshark -> Statistics -> IP Addresses
Things like this are supposed to be taken care by the application by itself.
In the process of reproducing this issue this resulted in
(wireshark:9541): Gdk-WARNING **: Native Windows wider or taller than 32767
pixels are not supported
(wireshark:9541): Gdk-ERROR **: The program 'wireshark' received an X Window
System error.
This probably reflects a bug in the program.
The error was 'BadAlloc (insufficient resources for operation)'.
(Details: serial 192739 error_code 11 request_code 53 minor_code 0)
(Note to programmers: normally, X errors are reported asynchronously;
that is, you will receive the error a while after causing it.
To debug your program, run it with the --sync command line
option to change this behavior. You can then get a meaningful
backtrace from your debugger if you break on the gdk_x_error() function.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Nr9Islgqxv&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 9 months
[Bug 1124543] Review Request: mingw-admesh - MinGW compiled ADMesh
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124543
František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
No issues found.
Only some comments (no changes are needed though):
* rpmlint: mingw-admesh.src: W: strange-permission admesh-0.98.0.tar.gz 0444L
I'm not sure what is cause of this. When downlading by wget, the permissions
are OK.
* You may consider adding INSTALL="install -p" to mingw_make_install command
for preserving timestamps.
It is probably controversional, and not mentioned in guidelines. Just
mentioning here this trick exists...
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/valtri
/fedora-scm/REVIEWS/mingw-admesh/1124543-mingw-admesh/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root,
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32,
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32,
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 204800 bytes in 18 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
mingw32-admesh , mingw32-admesh-static , mingw64-admesh , mingw64-admesh-
static
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
Note: mingw32-admesh : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-
root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libadmesh.pc mingw64-admesh :
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libadmesh.pc
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: mingw32-admesh-0.98.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
mingw32-admesh-static-0.98.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
mingw64-admesh-0.98.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
mingw64-admesh-static-0.98.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
mingw-admesh-0.98.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
mingw-admesh.src: W: strange-permission admesh-0.98.0.tar.gz 0444L
mingw-admesh.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://github.com/admesh/admesh/releases/download/v0.98.0/admesh-0.98.0.t...
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint mingw32-admesh mingw32-admesh-static mingw64-admesh-sta
tic mingw64-admesh
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
mingw32-admesh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libadmesh-1.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem
mingw32-pkg-config
mingw32-admesh-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
mingw32-admesh
mingw64-admesh-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
mingw64-admesh
mingw64-admesh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(libadmesh-1.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem
mingw64-pkg-config
Provides
--------
mingw32-admesh:
mingw32(libadmesh-1.dll)
mingw32-admesh
mingw32-admesh-static:
mingw32-admesh-static
mingw64-admesh-static:
mingw64-admesh-static
mingw64-admesh:
mingw64(libadmesh-1.dll)
mingw64-admesh
Source checksums
----------------
http://github.com/admesh/admesh/releases/download/v0.98.0/admesh-0.98.0.t...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
60062b273306f0a52cdc63e2af0c7ed27733802ffae27512d99bdbc9d61832c1
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
60062b273306f0a52cdc63e2af0c7ed27733802ffae27512d99bdbc9d61832c1
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1124543
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
===
Package approved!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DHNw2W1937&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 9 months