linux-kernel - Re: CVE-2024-35906: drm/amd/display: Send DTBCLK disable message on first commit

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZlC5ZooIRyVb9ITu@tiehlicka>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 17:59:34 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: cve@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-cve-announce@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CVE-2024-35906: drm/amd/display: Send DTBCLK disable message on
 first commit

On Fri 24-05-24 17:22:24, Greg KH wrote:
[...]
> > > And people want to word-smith the text all the time already, so we just
> > > default to using the changelog text as that's the most "neutral" and
> > > public information out there (i.e. we don't have to worry about any sort
> > > of data-retention or classification laws as the information is already
> > > public in kernel changelog text.)
> > 
> > This part I do not understand. What is wrong about a reasoning why
> > something has been considered a CVE? E.g. something like 
> > CVE assigned because a potential WARN_ON is fixed and that could panic
> > with panic_on_warn. Fixed by <URL_TO_LINUS_TREE>
> > 
> > or
> > CVE assigned because UAF is fixed and those can be generally used to
> > construct more complex attacks. Fixed by <URL_TO_LINUS_TREE>
> > 
> > etc.
> 
> Doing the work to classify all of these in this manner isn't going to
> happen by us, sorry, as it is not required by the CVE process, and
> frankly, we are doing a load of work already here.

I would really like the understand this position. You are doing the
classification already, right? What does prevent you from making that a
part of the process? Why wouldn't you like to help CVE consumers to
understand that process better?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs