linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation: Document the Linux Kernel CVE process

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: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:55:43 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, corbet@....net,
	workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, security@...nel.org,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Documentation: Document the Linux Kernel CVE process

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 02:43:48PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> > +No CVEs will be automatically assigned for unfixed security issues in
> > +the Linux kernel; assignment will only automatically happen after a fix
> > +is available and applied to a stable kernel tree, and it will be tracked
> > +that way by the git commit id of the original fix. 

> I think this needs way more clarification .. how exactly is this going to 
> work?

> Do I read this correctly that *everything* that lands in -stable will 
> automatically get CVE assigned? If so, that's just plain crazy. Just took 
> a random peek on the topmost -stable changelog ...

> 	ASoC: codecs: wsa883x: fix PA volume control
> 	ASoC: codecs: lpass-wsa-macro: fix compander volume hack
> 	ASoC: codecs: wcd938x: fix headphones volume controls
> 	ASoC: qcom: sc8280xp: limit speaker volumes
> 	drm/amdgpu: Fix missing error code in 'gmc_v6/7/8/9_0_hw_init()'

> Only the last one can *potentially* be considered a CVE candidate, but 
> someone would actually have to take a *deep* look. Most likely it'll be a 
> functional issue, but not a security issue by any measures.

Not addressing your point in general but the speaker volume limiting is
security relevant, that change prevents physical damage to the system.
There's an argument for many headphone volume related fixes too since
excessively large volumes can cause substantial distress and potential
injury to users (I can't remember if that fix would be relevant to that
issue).

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)