[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/shmat03: Remove CVE tag

[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/shmat03: Remove CVE tag

[Cyril Hrubis]

The CVE was proved to be bogus so as far as I can tell we shouldn't list
it in tags.

Signed-off-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
---
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmat/shmat03.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmat/shmat03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmat/shmat03.c
index 8a0b89bd5..dfa427a56 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmat/shmat03.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmat/shmat03.c
@@ -101,7 +101,6 @@ static struct tst_test test = {
 	.cleanup = cleanup,
 	.test_all = run,
 	.tags = (const struct tst_tag[]) {
-		{"CVE", "2017-5669"},
 		{"linux-git", "95e91b831f87"},
 		{"linux-git", "a73ab244f0da"},
 		{"linux-git", "8f89c007b6de"},
-- 
2.21.0

[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/shmat03: Remove CVE tag

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Cyril,

> The CVE was proved to be bogus so as far as I can tell we shouldn't list
> it in tags.
ack (although a link claiming it bogus would be nice).

Kind regards,
Petr

[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/shmat03: Remove CVE tag

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> > The CVE was proved to be bogus so as far as I can tell we shouldn't list
> > it in tags.
> ack (although a link claiming it bogus would be nice).

I've added added a commit hash of the commit that removed the test from
runtest/cve to this commit message. It's nicely explained in the
original commit so there is no need to copy the information over to the
new commit. Thanks.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/shmat03: Remove CVE tag

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Cyril,

> > > The CVE was proved to be bogus so as far as I can tell we shouldn't list
> > > it in tags.
> > ack (although a link claiming it bogus would be nice).

> I've added added a commit hash of the commit that removed the test from
> runtest/cve to this commit message. It's nicely explained in the
> original commit so there is no need to copy the information over to the
> new commit. Thanks.

Sure. Sorry, I didn't notice bogus explanation was already added in
2588dafd4651706ed7ae34ae3b744b0ee8cd6384.

Kind regards,
Petr