linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: admin-guide: Not every security bug should be kept hidden

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200827131004.GA2736@kozik-lap>
Date:   Thu, 27 Aug 2020 15:10:04 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Brooke Basile <brookebasile@...il.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: admin-guide: Not every security bug should be
 kept hidden

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:11:23PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:53:19PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Document describes the process of handling security bugs but does not
> > mention any criteria what is a "security bug".  Unlike
> > submitting-patches.rst which explicitly says - publicly exploitable bug.
> > 
> > Many NULL pointer exceptions, off-by-one errors or overflows tend
> > to look like security bug, so there might be a temptation to discuss
> > them behind security list which is not an open list.
> > 
> > Such discussion limits the amount of testing and independent reviewing.
> > Sacrificing open discussion is understandable in the case of real
> > security issues but not for regular bugs.  These should be discussed
> > publicly.
> > 
> > At the end, "security problems are just bugs".
> > 
> > Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> > Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>
> > Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Follow up to:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-usb/1425ab4f-ef7e-97d9-238f-0328ab51eb35@samsung.com/
> > ---
> >  Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst | 6 ++++++
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
> > index c32eb786201c..7ebddbd4bbcd 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
> > @@ -78,6 +78,12 @@ include linux-distros from the start. In this case, remember to prefix
> >  the email Subject line with "[vs]" as described in the linux-distros wiki:
> >  <http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros#how-to-use-the-lists>
> >  
> > +Fixes for non-exploitable bugs which do not pose a real security risk, should
> > +be disclosed in a regular way of submitting patches to Linux kernel (see
> > +:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submitting-patches>`).
> > +Just because patch fixes some off-by-one or NULL pointer exception, does not
> > +classify it as a security bug which should be discussed in closed channels.
> 
> I said this on another thread, but almost always, when we get reports
> like this on security@k.o, we do push them back to public lists.

Then let's hope that next time someone will read this documentation
before submitting such report to @security.

> 
> For the most part, this paragraph is not going to help much (mostly for
> the reason that no one seems to read it, but that's a different
> topic...)

All of our documentation is our wish that someone will read it and
follow it. Just because people might not follow it, is not necessarily a
reason to skip documentation.

> We get crazy reports all the time, and that's fine, because
> sometimes, there is a real issue in some of them.  And for that, we do
> want to be careful.  We also have many docuemented "off-by-one" bugs
> that were real security issues (there's a blog post somewhere about how
> a developer turned such a bug into a root hole, can't find it right
> now...)

I understand. That's why I also mentioned the criteria of exploitable
and posing a security risk. First case (even stricter - publicly
exploitable) is already mentioned in submitting-patches so I am not
changing the current status.

I merely want to document it based on recent discussion.

> So while I understand the temptation here, based on the current
> security@k.o traffic, I doubt this will really change much :(
> 
> Also, you should have cc:ed that group when you are changing things that
> will affect them.

Indeed, I will update the maintainers as well.

Best regards,
Krzysztof