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]

Date:   Sat, 7 Oct 2023 18:39:36 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To:     Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, 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

Hi Vegard,

On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 06:30:11PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote:
> 
> 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?

Probably, yes.

> > +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 don't know, maybe it would add extra config burden, but on the other
hand it could avoid the mistake from newcomers who have not read the
docs first (which happened a few times already), but if l-d becomes a
bit more flexible and tolerant to reporters' mistakes, as now documented,
it should also be less of a problem.

> 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.

Then this would be deliberate, there would an in-reply-to so that would
not be a problem. I really doubt anyone from s@k.o would Cc linux-distros
anyway since it would imply disclosing some details from a reporter, and
we do not do that, it's up to the reporter to do it if they want.

Thanks,
Willy