View Issue Details

IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0001978T99X171.00 SKB EagleSW Issuepublic2024-11-07 18:14
Reporter(ALTech) Younkwang Jung Assigned To(SW) Kinbay Wu Due Date2024-10-09 17:46
PrioritynormalSeveritys4-minorReproducibilityunable to reproduce
Status closedResolutionfixed 
Summary0001978: [Smart3][OS12] Linux Kernel Security Vulnerabilities (CVE-2024-36971)
DescriptionHi Kinbay

SKB security team has alerted us to a security vulnerability .
================================================================================================================
□ Description (CVE-2024-36971)
o Use After Free Vulnerability in Linux Kernel Network Path Management due to Not Adhering to Correct RCU Rules

□ Affected Products
o Linux Kernel 4.6 to 6.9.4 and earlier
o Linux Kernel 6.10.0 rc1

□ Workaround
o Update to the version where the vulnerability is resolved
- Linux Kernel 6.9.4
- Linux Kernel 6.10.0 rc2

□ Reference site
[1] https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-36971
[2] https://thehackernews.com/2024/08/google-patches-new-android-kernel.html
[3] https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2024-08-01?hl=ko
[4] Google, 표적 공격에 악용되는 Android 커널 제로데이 수정
================================================================================================================

Kernel version of Smart3 (OS12) is 4.9.269
As a result, security vulnerabilities are exposed.

Please check the following.
1) Whether this security vulnerability affects Smart3
2) Is it possible to resolve that security vulnerability without kernel upgrade?

Please check it by tomorrow.

Thank you
YK.Jung
TagsNo tags attached.
Attach Tags

Users monitoring this issue

User List (ALTech) Jong-Hwa JUNG , (ALTech) JunGyu Kim , (ALTech) Sangmin Choi , (ALTech) SY Yoon , (ALTech) Wooshin Kang

Activities

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-08-19 16:50

developer  

image.png (56,965 bytes)   
image.png (56,965 bytes)   

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-08-20 16:21

developer   ~0016503

Hi Kinbay

SKB is requesting an update on that security vulnerability.
Please let me know if there is any update.

Thank you
YK.Jung

(SW) Kinbay Wu

2024-08-20 17:25

developer   ~0016505

Hi YK,
 
The security vulnerability occurs after the below patch.
https://cs.android.com/android/_/android/kernel/common/+/92f1655aa2b2294d0b49925f3b875a634bd3b59e
But we have not updated the kernel for a long time before this.
So we suggest ignore it for now
 
BR,
Kinbay

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-08-21 08:22

developer   ~0016508

Hi Kinbay

Could you check below site ?
https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2024-08-01

If we apply Security patch 2024-08, will this security vulnerability be resolved?

Thank you
YK.Jung
image-2.png (45,152 bytes)   
image-2.png (45,152 bytes)   
image-3.png (46,428 bytes)   
image-3.png (46,428 bytes)   

(SW) Kinbay Wu

2024-08-21 15:04

developer   ~0016520

Hi YK,
 
We found the two patches to fix up.
The security vulnerability occurs after 0001-BACKPORT-net-fix-__dst_negative_advice-race.patch
Then fix by the 0002-ANDROID-ABI-fixup-for-abi-break-in-struct-dst_ops.patch.
 
But our source does not include the 0001-BACKPORT-net-fix-__dst_negative_advice-race.patch.
So we suggest ignoring it for now.
 
If we apply Security patch 2024-08, will this security vulnerability be resolved?
-> No, I checked the 2024-08 security patch does not include the fixup.
 
BR,
Kinbay

(SW) Kinbay Wu

2024-08-21 15:31

developer   ~0016523

0001-BACKPORT-net-fix-__dst_negative_advice-race.patch (6,991 bytes)   
From 1688b4ce3ed9959e79a5e3a1e9be331184a1b65d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 11:43:53 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] BACKPORT: net: fix __dst_negative_advice() race

__dst_negative_advice() does not enforce proper RCU rules when
sk->dst_cache must be cleared, leading to possible UAF.

RCU rules are that we must first clear sk->sk_dst_cache,
then call dst_release(old_dst).

Note that sk_dst_reset(sk) is implementing this protocol correctly,
while __dst_negative_advice() uses the wrong order.

Given that ip6_negative_advice() has special logic
against RTF_CACHE, this means each of the three ->negative_advice()
existing methods must perform the sk_dst_reset() themselves.

Note the check against NULL dst is centralized in
__dst_negative_advice(), there is no need to duplicate
it in various callbacks.

Many thanks to Clement Lecigne for tracking this issue.

This old bug became visible after the blamed commit, using UDP sockets.

Bug: 343727534
Fixes: a87cb3e48ee8 ("net: Facility to report route quality of connected sockets")
Reported-by: Clement Lecigne <clecigne@google.com>
Diagnosed-by: Clement Lecigne <clecigne@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <tom@herbertland.com>
Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240528114353.1794151-1-edumazet@google.com
Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
(cherry picked from commit 92f1655aa2b2294d0b49925f3b875a634bd3b59e)
[Lee: Trivial/unrelated conflict - no change to the patch]
Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <joneslee@google.com>
Change-Id: I293734dca1b81fcb712e1de294f51e96a405f7e4
[mkbestas: Non trivial backport to 4.14]
Signed-off-by: Michael Bestas <mkbestas@lineageos.org>
---
 include/net/dst_ops.h  |  2 +-
 include/net/sock.h     | 12 +++---------
 net/ipv4/route.c       | 22 ++++++++--------------
 net/ipv6/route.c       | 25 +++++++++++++------------
 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c | 11 +++--------
 5 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/net/dst_ops.h b/include/net/dst_ops.h
index a0d443ca16fc..c3cd125032fa 100644
--- a/include/net/dst_ops.h
+++ b/include/net/dst_ops.h
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ struct dst_ops {
 	void			(*destroy)(struct dst_entry *);
 	void			(*ifdown)(struct dst_entry *,
 					  struct net_device *dev, int how);
-	struct dst_entry *	(*negative_advice)(struct dst_entry *);
+	void			(*negative_advice)(struct sock *sk, struct dst_entry *);
 	void			(*link_failure)(struct sk_buff *);
 	void			(*update_pmtu)(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sock *sk,
 					       struct sk_buff *skb, u32 mtu);
diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
index 8fe71ee1935a..8c29e159972e 100644
--- a/include/net/sock.h
+++ b/include/net/sock.h
@@ -1719,18 +1719,12 @@ sk_dst_get(struct sock *sk)
 
 static inline void dst_negative_advice(struct sock *sk)
 {
-	struct dst_entry *ndst, *dst = __sk_dst_get(sk);
+	struct dst_entry *dst = __sk_dst_get(sk);
 
 	sk_rethink_txhash(sk);
 
-	if (dst && dst->ops->negative_advice) {
-		ndst = dst->ops->negative_advice(dst);
-
-		if (ndst != dst) {
-			rcu_assign_pointer(sk->sk_dst_cache, ndst);
-			sk_tx_queue_clear(sk);
-		}
-	}
+	if (dst && dst->ops->negative_advice)
+		dst->ops->negative_advice(sk, dst);
 }
 
 static inline void
diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
index ec3d6750bbf1..18483e6c3897 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
@@ -138,7 +138,8 @@ static int ip_rt_gc_timeout __read_mostly	= RT_GC_TIMEOUT;
 static struct dst_entry *ipv4_dst_check(struct dst_entry *dst, u32 cookie);
 static unsigned int	 ipv4_default_advmss(const struct dst_entry *dst);
 static unsigned int	 ipv4_mtu(const struct dst_entry *dst);
-static struct dst_entry *ipv4_negative_advice(struct dst_entry *dst);
+static void		 ipv4_negative_advice(struct sock *sk,
+					   struct dst_entry *dst);
 static void		 ipv4_link_failure(struct sk_buff *skb);
 static void		 ip_rt_update_pmtu(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sock *sk,
 					   struct sk_buff *skb, u32 mtu);
@@ -821,22 +822,15 @@ static void ip_do_redirect(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buf
 	__ip_do_redirect(rt, skb, &fl4, true);
 }
 
-static struct dst_entry *ipv4_negative_advice(struct dst_entry *dst)
+static void ipv4_negative_advice(struct sock *sk,
+				 struct dst_entry *dst)
 {
 	struct rtable *rt = (struct rtable *)dst;
-	struct dst_entry *ret = dst;
 
-	if (rt) {
-		if (dst->obsolete > 0) {
-			ip_rt_put(rt);
-			ret = NULL;
-		} else if ((rt->rt_flags & RTCF_REDIRECTED) ||
-			   rt->dst.expires) {
-			ip_rt_put(rt);
-			ret = NULL;
-		}
-	}
-	return ret;
+	if ((dst->obsolete > 0) ||
+	    (rt->rt_flags & RTCF_REDIRECTED) ||
+	    rt->dst.expires)
+		sk_dst_reset(sk);
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index cf05b953f8b8..f841528ae658 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
@@ -81,7 +81,8 @@ static void ip6_rt_copy_init(struct rt6_info *rt, struct rt6_info *ort);
 static struct dst_entry	*ip6_dst_check(struct dst_entry *dst, u32 cookie);
 static unsigned int	 ip6_default_advmss(const struct dst_entry *dst);
 static unsigned int	 ip6_mtu(const struct dst_entry *dst);
-static struct dst_entry *ip6_negative_advice(struct dst_entry *);
+static void		ip6_negative_advice(struct sock *sk,
+					    struct dst_entry *dst);
 static void		ip6_dst_destroy(struct dst_entry *);
 static void		ip6_dst_ifdown(struct dst_entry *,
 				       struct net_device *dev, int how);
@@ -1311,22 +1312,22 @@ static struct dst_entry *ip6_dst_check(struct dst_entry *dst, u32 cookie)
 		return rt6_check(rt, cookie);
 }
 
-static struct dst_entry *ip6_negative_advice(struct dst_entry *dst)
+static void ip6_negative_advice(struct sock *sk,
+				struct dst_entry *dst)
 {
 	struct rt6_info *rt = (struct rt6_info *) dst;
 
-	if (rt) {
-		if (rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_CACHE) {
-			if (rt6_check_expired(rt)) {
-				ip6_del_rt(rt);
-				dst = NULL;
-			}
-		} else {
-			dst_release(dst);
-			dst = NULL;
+	if (rt->rt6i_flags & RTF_CACHE) {
+		if (rt6_check_expired(rt)) {
+			/* counteract the dst_release() in sk_dst_reset() */
+			dst_hold(dst);
+			sk_dst_reset(sk);
+
+			ip6_del_rt(rt);
 		}
+		return;
 	}
-	return dst;
+	sk_dst_reset(sk);
 }
 
 static void ip6_link_failure(struct sk_buff *skb)
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
index e090ff476cdf..2a4f77b01936 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
@@ -2725,15 +2725,10 @@ static void xfrm_link_failure(struct sk_buff *skb)
 	/* Impossible. Such dst must be popped before reaches point of failure. */
 }
 
-static struct dst_entry *xfrm_negative_advice(struct dst_entry *dst)
+static void xfrm_negative_advice(struct sock *sk, struct dst_entry *dst)
 {
-	if (dst) {
-		if (dst->obsolete) {
-			dst_release(dst);
-			dst = NULL;
-		}
-	}
-	return dst;
+	if (dst->obsolete)
+		sk_dst_reset(sk);
 }
 
 void xfrm_garbage_collect(struct net *net)
-- 
2.34.1

0002-ANDROID-ABI-fixup-for-abi-break-in-struct-dst_ops.patch (4,965 bytes)   
From 4d12c66b108d4c0cddc2948c9deeb5e3b0728b93 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@google.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:33:51 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ANDROID: ABI fixup for abi break in struct dst_ops

In commit 92f1655aa2b2 ("net: fix __dst_negative_advice() race") the
struct dst_ops callback negative_advice is callback changes function
parameters.  But as this pointer is part of a structure that is tracked
in the ABI checker, the tool triggers when this is changed.

However, the callback pointer is internal to the networking stack, so
changing the function type is safe, so needing to preserve this is not
required.  To do so, switch the function pointer type back to the old
one so that the checking tools pass, AND then do a hard cast of the
function pointer to the new type when assigning and calling the
function.

Bug: 343727534
Fixes: 92f1655aa2b2 ("net: fix __dst_negative_advice() race")
Change-Id: I48d4ab4bbd29f8edc8fbd7923828b7f78a23e12e
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@google.com>
---
 include/net/dst_ops.h  | 12 +++++++++++-
 include/net/sock.h     | 12 ++++++++++--
 net/ipv4/route.c       |  2 +-
 net/ipv6/route.c       |  2 +-
 net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c |  2 +-
 5 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/net/dst_ops.h b/include/net/dst_ops.h
index c3cd125032fa..64e06d90c7a5 100644
--- a/include/net/dst_ops.h
+++ b/include/net/dst_ops.h
@@ -11,6 +11,16 @@ struct sk_buff;
 struct sock;
 struct net;
 
+/* *** ANDROID FIXUP ***
+ * These typedefs are used to help fixup the ABI break caused by commit
+ * 92f1655aa2b2 ("net: fix __dst_negative_advice() race") where the
+ * negative_advice callback changed function signatures.
+ * See b/343727534 for more details.
+ * *** ANDROID FIXUP ***
+ */
+typedef void (*android_dst_ops_negative_advice_new_t)(struct sock *sk, struct dst_entry *);
+typedef struct dst_entry * (*android_dst_ops_negative_advice_old_t)(struct dst_entry *);
+
 struct dst_ops {
 	unsigned short		family;
 	unsigned int		gc_thresh;
@@ -23,7 +33,7 @@ struct dst_ops {
 	void			(*destroy)(struct dst_entry *);
 	void			(*ifdown)(struct dst_entry *,
 					  struct net_device *dev, int how);
-	void			(*negative_advice)(struct sock *sk, struct dst_entry *);
+	struct dst_entry *	(*negative_advice)(struct dst_entry *);
 	void			(*link_failure)(struct sk_buff *);
 	void			(*update_pmtu)(struct dst_entry *dst, struct sock *sk,
 					       struct sk_buff *skb, u32 mtu);
diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
index 8c29e159972e..8a71f74e6bd9 100644
--- a/include/net/sock.h
+++ b/include/net/sock.h
@@ -1719,12 +1719,20 @@ sk_dst_get(struct sock *sk)
 
 static inline void dst_negative_advice(struct sock *sk)
 {
+	/* *** ANDROID FIXUP ***
+	 * See b/343727534 for more details why this typedef is needed here.
+	 * *** ANDROID FIXUP ***
+	 */
+	android_dst_ops_negative_advice_new_t negative_advice;
+
 	struct dst_entry *dst = __sk_dst_get(sk);
 
 	sk_rethink_txhash(sk);
 
-	if (dst && dst->ops->negative_advice)
-		dst->ops->negative_advice(sk, dst);
+	if (dst && dst->ops->negative_advice) {
+		negative_advice = (android_dst_ops_negative_advice_new_t)dst->ops->negative_advice;
+		negative_advice(sk, dst);
+	}
 }
 
 static inline void
diff --git a/net/ipv4/route.c b/net/ipv4/route.c
index 18483e6c3897..395108c7338e 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/route.c
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ static struct dst_ops ipv4_dst_ops = {
 	.mtu =			ipv4_mtu,
 	.cow_metrics =		ipv4_cow_metrics,
 	.destroy =		ipv4_dst_destroy,
-	.negative_advice =	ipv4_negative_advice,
+	.negative_advice =	(android_dst_ops_negative_advice_old_t)ipv4_negative_advice,
 	.link_failure =		ipv4_link_failure,
 	.update_pmtu =		ip_rt_update_pmtu,
 	.redirect =		ip_do_redirect,
diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
index f841528ae658..b6a31e83e1e3 100644
--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
+++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ static struct dst_ops ip6_dst_ops_template = {
 	.cow_metrics		=	ipv6_cow_metrics,
 	.destroy		=	ip6_dst_destroy,
 	.ifdown			=	ip6_dst_ifdown,
-	.negative_advice	=	ip6_negative_advice,
+	.negative_advice	=	(android_dst_ops_negative_advice_old_t)ip6_negative_advice,
 	.link_failure		=	ip6_link_failure,
 	.update_pmtu		=	ip6_rt_update_pmtu,
 	.redirect		=	rt6_do_redirect,
diff --git a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
index 2a4f77b01936..7855827323e5 100644
--- a/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
+++ b/net/xfrm/xfrm_policy.c
@@ -2872,7 +2872,7 @@ int xfrm_policy_register_afinfo(struct xfrm_policy_afinfo *afinfo)
 		if (likely(dst_ops->mtu == NULL))
 			dst_ops->mtu = xfrm_mtu;
 		if (likely(dst_ops->negative_advice == NULL))
-			dst_ops->negative_advice = xfrm_negative_advice;
+			dst_ops->negative_advice = (android_dst_ops_negative_advice_old_t)xfrm_negative_advice;
 		if (likely(dst_ops->link_failure == NULL))
 			dst_ops->link_failure = xfrm_link_failure;
 		if (likely(dst_ops->neigh_lookup == NULL))
-- 
2.34.1

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-08-22 13:08

developer   ~0016537

Hi Kinbay

I will check your suggestion by Monday and give you feedback.

Thank you
YK.Jung

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-08-23 09:25

developer   ~0016553

Hi Kinbay

There are a few things I want to check.
1) About patch date
>> The security vulnerability occurs after 0001-BACKPORT-net-fix-__dst_negative_advice-race.patch
>> Then fix by the 0002-ANDROID-ABI-fixup-for-abi-break-in-struct-dst_ops.patch.
    0001-BACKPORT-net-fix-__dst_negative_advice-race.patch : Tue, 28 May 2024 11:43:53 +0000
    0002-ANDROID-ABI-fixup-for-abi-break-in-struct-dst_ops.patch : Sat, 1 Jun 2024 09:33:51 +0000
    Why is the resolved patch dated earlier?

2) Where did it say "0002-ANDROID-ABI-fixup-for-abi-break-in-struct-dst_ops.patch" was fixed?
   How did you find it and share the link ?

3) fxn suggested ignoring it
   If you know the difference between ignoring and applying two patches, please explain.
   Other manufacturers are trying to apply it and will proceed with the test.

Thank you
YK.Jung

(SW) Kinbay Wu

2024-08-23 10:38

developer   ~0016556

Hi YK,
 
1) About patch date
=> I think it's correct to say 0001 comes before 0002.
 
2) Where did it say "0002-ANDROID-ABI-fixup-for-abi-break-in-struct-dst_ops.patch" was fixed?
=>
Sorry, I have a little ambiguous.
The two patches both fix the security vulnerability.
But the 0002 patch is true to correct the errors in the 0001 patch.
Please refer to the 0002 commit message for more details.
 
2-2) How did you find it and share the link?
=>
https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2024-08-01?authuser=1#Kernel
You can find it at Referneces (see attached screenshot).
And these 12 patches are duplicates. In fact, there are only two.
 
3) About fxn suggested ignoring it
=>
Because these two patches are modified based on the latest kernel
Our kernel has not been updated for a long time.
So we are worried that it will cause more problems after pushing two patches.
 
BR,
Kinbay
image-4.png (83,230 bytes)   
image-4.png (83,230 bytes)   

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-08-27 08:18

developer   ~0016577

Hi Kinbay

Thank you for update

Currently, other manufacturers, such as INTEK/INNOPIA, have different opinions on the patch.
I'll give you a feedback after we review together by next monday

and if I have any questions, I will ask you

Thank you
YK.Jung

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-08-28 12:54

developer   ~0016592

Hi Kinbay

I've discussed with other manufacturers (INTEK/INNOPIA), but there's no clear result yet.
However, other manufacturers are testing the patch first.

Anyway , It's described on the Google Security Bulletin.
https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2024-08-01?hl=ko
Can you ask 3PL if BFX-AT100 have to apply the patch or not?

Thank you
YK.Jung

(SW) Kinbay Wu

2024-08-29 17:32

developer   ~0016608

Hi YK
 
I asked the 3PL, and they indicated that the severity is high, so we must apply it.
 
BR,
Kinbay

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-08-30 13:17

developer   ~0016617

Hi Kinbay

I got it , then please apply the patchs and test it, so if there is no problem, please share them

Before you push the bitbucket , we are going to proceed with the stability test.

Thank you
YK.Jung

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-09-05 16:04

developer   ~0016668

Hi Kinbay

Please make a test branch with the patchs and let me know.
then we will test it

Thank you
YK.Jung

(SW) Kinbay Wu

2024-09-05 16:33

developer   ~0016669

Hi YK,

Our SQA team is helping with the testing.
Which branch should I base on? 543 / 542 / 542_CUG

BR,
Kinbay

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-09-05 17:01

developer   ~0016671

Hi Kinbay

Please use UI543 branch as the base.

Thank you
YK.Jung

(SW) Kinbay Wu

2024-09-05 18:05

developer   ~0016673

Hi YK,

I've pushed a new branch named [mantis1978].
Please check it.

BR,
Kinbay

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-09-05 19:11

developer   ~0016674

Hi Kinbay

OK , I checked mantis1978

Thank you
YK.Jung
image-5.png (54,194 bytes)   
image-5.png (54,194 bytes)   

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-10-08 12:44

developer   ~0016815

Hi KInbay

Please apply this patch to UI543

Thank you
YK.Jung

(SW) Kinbay Wu

2024-10-08 14:44

developer   ~0016818

Hi YK,

Merge done.
Please check it.

BR,
Kinbay

(ALTech) Younkwang Jung

2024-11-07 18:14

developer   ~0016952

Hi Kinbay

it's ok ,
I will close this ticket.

Thank you
YK.Jung

Issue History

Date Modified Username Field Change
2024-08-19 16:50 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung New Issue
2024-08-19 16:50 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Status new => assigned
2024-08-19 16:50 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Assigned To => (SW) Kinbay Wu
2024-08-19 16:50 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung File Added: image.png
2024-08-19 16:50 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Issue Monitored: (ALTech) SY Yoon
2024-08-19 16:50 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Issue Monitored: (ALTech) JunGyu Kim
2024-08-19 16:51 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Issue Monitored: (ALTech) Wooshin Kang
2024-08-19 16:51 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Issue Monitored: (ALTech) Sangmin Choi
2024-08-19 16:51 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Issue Monitored: (ALTech) Jong-Hwa JUNG
2024-08-20 16:21 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016503
2024-08-20 17:25 (SW) Kinbay Wu Note Added: 0016505
2024-08-21 08:22 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016508
2024-08-21 08:22 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung File Added: image-2.png
2024-08-21 08:22 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung File Added: image-3.png
2024-08-21 15:04 (SW) Kinbay Wu Note Added: 0016520
2024-08-21 15:31 (SW) Kinbay Wu Note Added: 0016523
2024-08-21 15:31 (SW) Kinbay Wu File Added: 0001-BACKPORT-net-fix-__dst_negative_advice-race.patch
2024-08-21 15:31 (SW) Kinbay Wu File Added: 0002-ANDROID-ABI-fixup-for-abi-break-in-struct-dst_ops.patch
2024-08-22 13:08 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016537
2024-08-22 13:08 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Due Date 2024-08-20 17:46 => 2024-08-27 17:46
2024-08-23 09:25 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016553
2024-08-23 10:38 (SW) Kinbay Wu Note Added: 0016556
2024-08-23 10:38 (SW) Kinbay Wu File Added: image-4.png
2024-08-27 08:18 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016577
2024-08-27 08:18 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Due Date 2024-08-27 17:46 => 2024-09-02 17:46
2024-08-28 12:54 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016592
2024-08-29 17:32 (SW) Kinbay Wu Note Added: 0016608
2024-08-30 13:17 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016617
2024-09-05 16:04 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016668
2024-09-05 16:33 (SW) Kinbay Wu Note Added: 0016669
2024-09-05 17:01 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016671
2024-09-05 18:05 (SW) Kinbay Wu Note Added: 0016673
2024-09-05 19:11 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016674
2024-09-05 19:11 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung File Added: image-5.png
2024-10-08 12:44 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016815
2024-10-08 12:44 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Due Date 2024-09-02 17:46 => 2024-10-09 17:46
2024-10-08 14:44 (SW) Kinbay Wu Note Added: 0016818
2024-11-07 18:14 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Note Added: 0016952
2024-11-07 18:14 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Status assigned => closed
2024-11-07 18:14 (ALTech) Younkwang Jung Resolution open => fixed