linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: linux-distros relaxed their rules

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: <5ae47535-b6e0-8b48-4d59-a167e37c7fcc@oracle.com>
Date:   Sat, 7 Oct 2023 18:30:11 +0200
From:   Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
To:     Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, security@...nel.org, corbet@....net,
        workflows@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: linux-distros
 relaxed their rules

On 07/10/2023 16:04, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> +As such, the kernel security team strongly recommends that reporters of
> +potential security issues DO NOT contact the "linux-distros" mailing
> +list BEFORE a fix is accepted by the affected code's maintainers and you

is s/BEFORE/UNTIL/ clearer?

> +have read the linux-distros wiki page above and you fully understand the
> +requirements that doing so will impose on you and the kernel community.
> +This also means that in general it doesn't make sense to Cc: both lists
> +at once, except for coordination if a fix remains under embargo. And in
> +general, please do not Cc: the kernel security list about fixes that
> +have already been merged.

I was thinking about this Cc: thing and would it make sense to:

1) have LKML and other public vger lists reject messages that include
s@k.o or (linux-)distros@ on Cc? The idea being that this is probably a
mistake -- I believe it has happened a few times recently by mistake.

2) have (linux-)distros@ reject NEW threads (i.e. no In-Reply-To:) that
also include s@k.o on Cc? We could include a nice message explaining why
and to please resend when a patch has been developed and/or a disclosure
is planned in the next 7 days. I guess the problem with this would be if
somebody on s@k.o does a reply-all which would add distros right back in
the loop -OR- a patch has already been developed and included.

Vegard