Re: Patch attestation RFC + proof of concept

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 2:58 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@zx2c4.com> wrote:
> It doesn't help with the reverse scenario, where what's in the
> developer's inbox or displayed on the lore webserver running a
> backdoored nginx doesn't match the patches that they eventually apply.
> That might seem like an unrealistic attack scenario, but then think
> about it combined with the get-lore-mbox feature to grab the latest
> patchset version and other similar shenanigans. Or, maybe Eve reposts
> v1 as v20, and this mailing list thread convinces you to ignore the
> [PATCH vX] from the metadata hash, or maintainers don't care about
> that hash verifying anyway since it tends to get mangled.

Or different patches with the same subject.

Recently, I accidentally send out a patch with the wrong subject, which
matched an older patch.

"get-lore-mbox.py 20200218112557.5924-1-geert+renesas@glider.be"
downloads the new thread, plus the email with the old patch with the same
one-line summary.

Worse, "get-lore-mbox.py -a 20200218112557.5924-1-geert+renesas@glider.be"
selects the old patch instead of the new one, despite the exact Message-ID
match on the command line.  Fortunately "git am" complained, as the old
patch had already been applied.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds