As a follow-up to the UMN incident[1], the TAB took the responsibility to document Researcher Guidelines so there would be a common place to point for describing our expectations as a developer community. Document best practices researchers should follow to participate successfully with the Linux developer community. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202105051005.49BFABCE@keescook/ Co-developed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Co-developed-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> Co-developed-by: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@xxxxxxxxxx> Co-developed-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Steve Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Wenwen Wang <wenwen@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst | 1 + .../admin-guide/researcher-guidelines.rst | 141 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 142 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/admin-guide/researcher-guidelines.rst diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst index 1bedab498104..7fff0730204d 100644 --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/index.rst @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ problems and bugs in particular. :maxdepth: 1 reporting-issues + researcher-guidelines security-bugs bug-hunting bug-bisect diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/researcher-guidelines.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/researcher-guidelines.rst new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..993f32d1166c --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/researcher-guidelines.rst @@ -0,0 +1,141 @@ +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 + +.. _researcher_guidelines: + +Researcher Guidelines ++++++++++++++++++++++ + +The Linux kernel community welcomes transparent research on the Linux +kernel, the activities involved in producing it, and any other byproducts +of its development. Linux benefits greatly from this kind of research, and +most aspects of Linux are driven by research in one form or another. + +The community greatly appreciates if researchers can share preliminary +findings before making their results public, especially if such research +involves security. Getting involved early helps both improve the quality +of research and ability for Linux to improve from it. In any case, +sharing open access copies of the published research with the community +is recommended. + +This document seeks to clarify what the Linux kernel community considers +acceptable and non-acceptable practices when conducting such research. At +the very least, such research and related activities should follow +standard research ethics rules. For more background on research ethics +generally, ethics in technology, and research of developer communities +in particular, see: + +* `History of Research Ethics <https://www.unlv.edu/research/ORI-HSR/history-ethics>`_ +* `IEEE Ethics <https://www.ieee.org/about/ethics/index.html>`_ +* `Developer and Researcher Views on the Ethics of Experiments on + Open-Source Projects <https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.13217.pdf>`_ + +The Linux kernel community expects that everyone interacting with the +project is participating in good faith to make Linux better. Research on +any publicly-available artifact (including, but not limited to source +code) produced by the Linux kernel community is welcome, though research +on developers must be distinctly opt-in. + +Passive research that is based entirely on publicly available sources, +including posts to public mailing lists and commits to public +repositories, is clearly permissible. Though, as with any research, +standard ethics must still be followed. + +Active research on developer behavior, however, must be done with the +explicit agreement of, and full disclosure to, the individual developers +involved. Developers cannot be interacted with/experimented on without +consent; this, too, is standard research ethics. + +To help clarify: sending patches to developers *is* interacting +with them, but they have already consented to receiving *good faith +contributions*. Sending intentionally flawed/vulnerable patches or +contributing misleading information to discussions is not consented +to. Such communication can be damaging to the developer (e.g. draining +time, effort, and morale) and damaging to the project by eroding +the entire developer community's trust in the contributor (and the +contributor's organization as a whole), undermining efforts to provide +constructive feedback to contributors, and putting end users at risk of +software flaws. + +Participation in the development of Linux itself by researchers, as +with anyone, is welcomed and encouraged. Research into Linux code is +a common practice, especially when it comes to developing or running +analysis tools that produce actionable results. + +When engaging with the developer community, sending a patch has +traditionally been the best way to make an impact. Linux already has +plenty of known bugs -- what's much more helpful is having vetted fixes. +Before contributing, carefully read the documentation on +:doc:`submitting patches <../process/submitting-patches>`, +:doc:`reporting issues <reporting-issues>`, and +:doc:`handling serious flaws <security-bugs>`. Send a patch (including +a commit log with all the details listed below), and follow up on any +feedback from other developers. + +When sending patches produced from research, the commit logs should +contain at least the following details, so that developers have +appropriate context for understanding the contribution. Answer: + +* What is the specific problem that has been found? +* How could the problem be reached on a running system? +* What effect would encountering the problem have on the system? +* How was the problem found? Specifically include details about any + testing, static or dynamic analysis programs, and any other tools or + methods used to perform the work. +* Which version of Linux was the problem was found on? Using the most + recent release or a recent :doc:`linux-next branch <../process/howto>` + is strongly preferred. +* What was changed to fix the problem, and why it is believed to be correct? +* How was the change build tested and run-time tested? +* What prior commit does this change fix? This should go in a "Fixes:" + tag as the documentation describes. +* Who else has reviewed this patch? This should go in appropriate + "Reviewed-by:" tags; see below. + +For example:: + + From: Author <author@email> + Subject: [PATCH] drivers/foo_bar: Add missing kfree() + + The error path in foo_bar driver does not correctly free the allocated + struct foo_bar_info. This can happen if the attached foo_bar device + rejects the initialization packets sent during foo_bar_probe(). This + would result in a 64 byte slab memory leak once per device attach, + wasting memory resources over time. + + This flaw was found using an experimental static analysis tool we are + developing, LeakMagic[1], which reported the following warning when + analyzing the v5.15 kernel release: + + path/to/foo_bar.c:187: missing kfree() call? + + Add the missing kfree() to the error path. No other references to + this memory exist outside the probe function, so this is the only + place it can be freed. + + x86_64 and arm64 defconfig builds with CONFIG_FOO_BAR=y using GCC + 11.2 show no new warnings, and LeakMagic no longer warns about this + code path. As we don't have a FooBar device to test with, no runtime + testing was able to be performed. + + [1] https://url/to/leakmagic/details + + Reported-by: Researcher <researcher@email> + Fixes: aaaabbbbccccdddd ("Introduce support for FooBar") + Signed-off-by: Author <author@email> + Reviewed-by: Reviewer <reviewer@email> + +If you are a first time contributor it is recommended that the patch +itself be vetted by others privately before being posted to public lists. +(This is required if you have been explicitly told your patches need +more careful internal review.) These people are expected to have their +"Reviewed-by" tag included in the resulting patch. Finding another +developer familiar with Linux contribution, especially within your own +organization, and having them help with reviews before sending them to +the public mailing lists tends to significantly improve the quality of the +resulting patches, and there by reduces the burden on other developers. + +If no one can be found to internally review patches and you need +help finding such a person, or if you have any other questions +related to this document and the developer community's expectations, +please reach out to the private Technical Advisory Board mailing list: +<tech-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>. -- 2.30.2
