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]

Message-ID: <2024021402-dehydrate-stock-1f12@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:32:13 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.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 01:55:43PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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).

And this points to the fact that we now have a way, if a
maintainer/developer says "hey, that commit could be a potential issue,
I want to call that out to others!" they now have a path to do so.  Just
email cve@...nel.org "can you assign a cve to git id XXXX because of
YYY" and we will do so.

thanks!

greg k-h