Am 26. Juli 2023 09:24:28 UTC schrieb Paul Durrant :
>On 26/07/2023 10:07, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2023-07-26 at 09:44 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
>>> On 25/07/2023 11:05, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: David Woodhouse
Fuzzing showed that a guest could bind an interdomain
On 26/07/2023 10:07, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2023-07-26 at 09:44 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
On 25/07/2023 11:05, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: David Woodhouse
Fuzzing showed that a guest could bind an interdomain port to itself, by
guessing the next port to be allocated and putting that
On Wed, 2023-07-26 at 09:44 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> On 25/07/2023 11:05, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > From: David Woodhouse
> >
> > Fuzzing showed that a guest could bind an interdomain port to itself, by
> > guessing the next port to be allocated and putting that as the 'remote'
> > port numb
On 25/07/2023 11:05, David Woodhouse wrote:
From: David Woodhouse
Fuzzing showed that a guest could bind an interdomain port to itself, by
guessing the next port to be allocated and putting that as the 'remote'
port number. By chance, that works because the newly-allocated port has
type EVTCHNS
From: David Woodhouse
Fuzzing showed that a guest could bind an interdomain port to itself, by
guessing the next port to be allocated and putting that as the 'remote'
port number. By chance, that works because the newly-allocated port has
type EVTCHNSTAT_unbound. It shouldn't.
Signed-off-by: Dav