[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202307031131.51907BC65@keescook>
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2023 11:35:37 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, 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 05:00:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 06:08:00AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > The security team does not assign CVEs, nor do we require them for
> > reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and may
> > delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier
> > assigned, they should find one by themselves, for example by contacting
> > MITRE directly. However under no circumstances will a patch inclusion
> > be delayed to wait for a CVE identifier to arrive.
> >
> > This puts the responsibility for finding one in time on the reporter
> > depending on what they expect, and if they want it in the commit
> > message, they'd rather have one before reporting the problem.
>
> Oh, nice wording, let me steal that! :)
Yeah, this is good. The last sentence is a little hard to parse, so how
about this, with a little more rationale expansion:
However under no circumstances will patch publication be delayed for
CVE identifier assignment. Getting fixes landed takes precedence; the
CVE database entry will already reference the commit, so there is no loss
of information if the CVE is assigned later.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists