linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements.

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: <7ee74c1b5b589619a13c6318c9fbd0d6ac7c334a.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:39:11 -0400
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To: geert@...ux-m68k.org
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Remove some entries due to various
 compliance requirements.

> On Fri, 18 Oct 2024, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > Remove some entries due to various compliance requirements. They
> > can come back in the future if sufficient documentation is
> > provided.
> 
> This is very vague...

We finally got clearance to publish the actual advice:

   If your company is on the U.S. OFAC SDN lists, subject to an OFAC
   sanctions program, or owned/controlled by a company on the list, our
   ability to collaborate with you will be subject to restrictions, and
   you cannot be in the MAINTAINERS file.

> What are "various compliance requirements"?
> What does "sufficient documentation" mean?

The documentation Greg is looking for (which a group of Lawyers at the
LF will verify) is that someone in the removed list doesn't actually
work for an OFAC SDN sanctioned entity.

> I can guess, but I think it's better to spell out the rules, as Linux
> kernel development is done "in the open". I am also afraid this is
> opening the door for further (ab)use...

I agree we should have been more transparent about this but I think it
would be hard for someone other than Greg to get a Maintainer removed
on the "compliance issue" grounds so it's probably not that open to
abuse.

Regards,

James