lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] Documentation/security-bugs: provide more information about linux-distros
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 03:00:55PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 07:11:03PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> Provide more information about how to interact with the linux-distros
>> mailing list for disclosing security bugs.
>>
>> Reference the linux-distros list policy and clarify that the reporter
>> must read and understand those policies as they differ from
>> security@kernel.org's policy.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
>
>Sorry, but NACK, see below...
>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Focus more on pointing to the linux-distros wiki and policies.
>
>I think this is already happening in the text. What specifically do you
>want described differently?

The main issue was that there isn't anything pointing to the
linux-distros policies. The current text outlines a few of them ("add
[vs]", and "there should be an embargo period"), but it effectively just
gives out the linux-distros mailing address and tells the reporter to
contact it.

>> - Remove explicit linux-distros email.
>
>I don't like this because we had past trouble with notifications going
>to the distros@ list and leaking Linux-only flaws to the BSDs. As there
>isn't a separate linux-distros wiki, the clarification of WHICH list is
>needed.

Why would removing the explicit linux-distros email encourage people to
send reports to it?

I also don't understand what you mean by "there isn't a separate
linux-distros wiki"? There is one, and I want to point the reporter
there.

>> - Remove various explanations of linux-distros policies.
>
>I don't think there's value in removing the Tue-Thu comment, nor
>providing context for why distros need time. This has been a regular
>thing we've had to explain to researchers that aren't familiar with
>update procedures and publication timing.

To be fair, the Tue-Thu comment is listed in the section describing how
to do coordination with linux-distros, and linux-distros don't have a
Tue-Thu policy. If it's a security@kernel.org policy then let's list it
elsewhere.

If you feel that there is a consensus around Tue-Thu let's just add it
to the linux-distros policy wiki, there's no point in listing random
policies from that wiki.

--
Thanks,
Sasha

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-19 02:40    [W:0.086 / U:0.180 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site