From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: libgd security update / i686 issues Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 17:00:38 +0200 Message-ID: <87zip0a3qh.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20160728072337.GA1011@jasmine> <20160728212618.GA12938@jasmine> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43891) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bT9HI-0004pR-UV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:00:45 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bT9HF-0002tL-Qz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 29 Jul 2016 11:00:44 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160728212618.GA12938@jasmine> (Leo Famulari's message of "Thu, 28 Jul 2016 17:26:18 -0400") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Leo Famulari Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Leo Famulari skribis: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 03:23:37AM -0400, Leo Famulari wrote: >> libgd 2.2.3 has been released [0], which includes fixes for >> CVE-2016-6207. > > Instead of updating to 2.2.3, we could also try cherry-picking the > upstream commits that address this bug, as attached. Are there any good reasons not to update? I would tend to update, which sounds simpler and will have to be done anyway, but maybe I=E2=80=99m overlooking something. Thanks for taking care of this, Ludo=E2=80=99.