Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: admin-guide: Not every security bug should be kept hidden

From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Brooke Basile <brookebasile@gmail.com>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: admin-guide: Not every security bug should be kept hidden
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 10:54:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <202008271053.A28980248@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200827121123.GC417381@kroah.com>

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 02:11:23PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 12:53:19PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst
> > @@ -78,6 +78,12 @@ include linux-distros from the start. In this case, remember to prefix
> >  the email Subject line with "[vs]" as described in the linux-distros wiki:
> >  <http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros#how-to-use-the-lists>
> >  
> > +Fixes for non-exploitable bugs which do not pose a real security risk, should
> > +be disclosed in a regular way of submitting patches to Linux kernel (see
> > +:ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submitting-patches>`).
> > +Just because patch fixes some off-by-one or NULL pointer exception, does not
> > +classify it as a security bug which should be discussed in closed channels.
> 
> I said this on another thread, but almost always, when we get reports
> like this on security@k.o, we do push them back to public lists.
> 
> For the most part, this paragraph is not going to help much (mostly for
> the reason that no one seems to read it, but that's a different
> topic...)  We get crazy reports all the time, and that's fine, because
> sometimes, there is a real issue in some of them.  And for that, we do
> want to be careful.  We also have many docuemented "off-by-one" bugs
> that were real security issues (there's a blog post somewhere about how
> a developer turned such a bug into a root hole, can't find it right
> now...)
> 
> So while I understand the temptation here, based on the current
> security@k.o traffic, I doubt this will really change much :(

And given our relatively low traffic, I'd rather we (the
security@kernel.org folks) make the determination if things should be
public or private. We should be the ones on the hook for those judgement
calls, not the reporter reading our documentation. :)

-- 
Kees Cook