[PATCH v2 1/8] Update GLIBC-SA-2026-0012 to mention A6 records

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 6/16/26 12:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> It turns out there is a missing inner length check in it, too.
> 
> Also fix the vulnerable commit.  It predates the glibc 2.0 release
> because the old stream-based formatting code in resolv/res_debug.c had
> the same bug in its LOC handling.

LGTM. Thanks.

Reviewed-by: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>

> ---
>   advisories/GLIBC-SA-2026-0012 | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/advisories/GLIBC-SA-2026-0012 b/advisories/GLIBC-SA-2026-0012
> index 6f8f00ddd7..926ca16102 100644
> --- a/advisories/GLIBC-SA-2026-0012
> +++ b/advisories/GLIBC-SA-2026-0012
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Buffer overread in ns_printrrf with corrupted RDATA field
>   
>   The deprecated functions ns_printrrf, ns_printrr and fp_nquery in the
>   GNU C Library version 2.2 and newer fail to validate the RDATA content
> -against the RDATA length in a DNS response when processing LOC, CERT,
> +against the RDATA length in a DNS response when processing A6, CERT, LOC,

OK. Alphasort the reference.

Note: Best practice is to follow up with the glibc security team if the
CVE record is out of sync with the project advisory.

>   TKEY or TSIG records, which may allow an attacker to craft a DNS
>   response, causing a target application to crash or read uninitialized
>   memory.
> @@ -15,4 +15,4 @@ interfaces since they may be removed in future versions.
>   
>   CVE-Id: CVE-2026-6238
>   Public-Date: 2026-04-11
> -Vulnerable-Commit: b43b13ac2544b11f35be301d1589b51a8473e32b (2.2)
> +Vulnerable-Commit: ee188d555b8c32ad9704a7440cab400af967292f (1.90)

OK. Reviewed the commit in question and the surrounding code.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.