linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] 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: <0bd8c620-7f80-44c4-ade3-b3d7951b48d8@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2024 16:03:02 +0100
From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@...e.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, corbet@....net,
 workflows@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 security@...nel.org, linux@...mhuis.info, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
 Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
 Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
 Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Documentation: Document the Linux Kernel CVE process

On 15.02.24 13:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> The Linux kernel project now has the ability to assign CVEs to fixed
> issues, so document the process and how individual developers can get a
> CVE if one is not automatically assigned for their fixes.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
> Reviewed-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
> ---
> v4: Add MAINTAINER entry
>      Lots of tiny wording changes based on many reviews
>      Collected some Reviewed-by: tags
>      Fixed documenation build by properly referencing the security
>      process documentation file.
> v3: fix up wording in security-bugs.rst based on the changes to the cve
>      assignment process from v1, thanks to a private reviewer for
>      pointing that out.
> v2: Grammer fixes based on review from Randy
>      Updated paragraph about how CVE identifiers will be assigned
>      (automatically when added to stable trees, or ask us for one
>      directly before that happens if so desired)
> 
>   Documentation/process/cve.rst           | 120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   Documentation/process/index.rst         |   1 +
>   Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst |   5 +-
>   MAINTAINERS                             |   5 +
>   4 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 Documentation/process/cve.rst
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/cve.rst b/Documentation/process/cve.rst
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..6b244d938694
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/process/cve.rst
> @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@

..

> +Invalid CVEs
> +------------
> +
> +If a security issue is found in a Linux kernel that is only supported by
> +a Linux distribution due to the changes that have been made by that
> +distribution, or due to the distribution supporting a kernel version
> +that is no longer one of the kernel.org supported releases, then a CVE
> +can not be assigned by the Linux kernel CVE team, and must be asked for
> +from that Linux distribution itself.
> +
> +Any CVE that is assigned against the Linux kernel for an actively
> +supported kernel version, by any group other than the kernel assignment
> +CVE team should not be treated as a valid CVE.  Please notify the
> +kernel CVE assignment team at <cve@...nel.org> so that they can work to
> +invalidate such entries through the CNA remediation process.

Today we (the Xen security team) are allocating CVEs for Xen-related
kernel security bugs.

Does this mean we should do that via cve@...nel.org in future, or are
you happy us continuing our process as today? If the latter, I think
this should be noted somehow in this document in order to avoid complaints
regarding CVEs allocated by us.


Juergen (on behalf of the Xen security team)