On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 12:05:18AM +0000, Harishankar Vishwanathan wrote: > > On Apr 10, 2024, at 7:43 AM, Shung-Hsi Yu <shung-hsi.yu@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 06:17:05PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > >> I don't feel too strongly about it, and if you or Shung-Hsi still > >> think, on reflection, that backporting is desirable, then go ahead > >> and keep the Fixes: tag. > >> But maybe tweak the description so someone doesn't see "latent > >> unsoundness" and think they need to CVE and rush this patch out as > >> a security thing; it's more like hardening. *shrug* > > > > Unfortunately with Linux Kernel's current approach as a CVE Numbering > > Authority I don't think this can be avoided. Patches with fixes tag will > > almost certainly get a CVE number assigned (e.g. CVE-2024-26624[1][2]), > > and we can only dispute[3] after such assignment happend for the CVE to > > be rejected. > > It seems the best option is to CC the patch to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (so > that it will be backported), and not add the fixes tag (so that no CVE will > be assigned). Does this seem reasonable? If yes, I’ll proceed with v3. > I'll also mention that this is a hardening in the commit message. Sounds good to me. Not 100% certain that this will avoid CVE assignment, but does seems like the best option. Shung-Hsi
