linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: clarify CVE handling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZKMi78OUCL2N5OQB@1wt.eu>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2023 21:35:11 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        security@...nel.org, corbet@....net, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: clarify CVE
 handling

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 12:26:32PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> I still think this version of the sentence is more readable:
> 
> However under no circumstances will patch publication be delayed for
> CVE identifier assignment.
> 
> "patch inclusion" is less clear to me that "publication", and "be
> delayed to wait for" is redundant: a delay is a wait, and "to arrive"
> is just the assignment, which is the subject of the paragraph, so better
> to keep the language for that consistent.

I agree, I find it better as well :-)

Thanks,
Willy