On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 04:35:00PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 06:09:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > >On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 07:07:32PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > >>On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 12:36:37PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > >>> Provide more information about how to interact with the linux-distros > >>> mailing list for disclosing security bugs. > >>> > >>> First, clarify that the reporter must read and accept the linux-distros > >>> policies prior to sending a report. > >>> > >>> Second, clarify that the reported must provide a tentative public > >>> disclosure date and time in his first contact with linux-distros. > >>> > >>> Suggested-by: Solar Designer <solar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> Documentation/admin-guide/security-bugs.rst | 21 +++++++++++++-------- > >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) Thanks. Sasha's proposed changes do address the two issues I pointed out, so are an improvement. However: > >>Do we really need to describe all of the information on how to use the > >>distro list here? That's why we included the link, as it has all of > >>this well spelled out and described. If anything, I would say we should > >>say less in this document about what linux-distros do, as that is > >>independent of the Linux security team. > > > >Agreed, and it also means that any changes linux-distros make to their > >policy won't be reflecting in the numerous kernel trees out there, so a > >link is much better imo. I also agree with this. > I agree that the 2nd part about embargo timelines is redundant, but I > only addressed it because the document was already addressing embargos. > > I only now realized that the link we had there was just going to the > main wiki page by mistake: the tag it was trying to point to was removed > from the wiki page. We should probably update that too. > > With regards to the explicit instruction to agree with policies, I think > we do need it there. Right now this section reads as "for embargoes work > with linux-distros@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, and btw they have a wiki which you > may or may not need to read". Yes, we should update the link, but maybe we should also drop the posting e-mail address, which will ensure someone will have to check out the link before they're able to post. This should allow us to drop the summary of linux-distros policy and posting instructions, although maybe they're beneficial to keep if we're confident we'd be maintaining this summary to reflect possible changes on the linked page. > We probably do need to stress here that linux-distros has different > policies than security@xxxxxxxxxx. OK. Alexander
