On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 06:08:00AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Jul 02, 2023 at 02:39:49PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 11:18:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 09:14:21AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > The kernel security team does NOT assign CVEs, so document that properly > > > > and provide the "if you want one, ask MITRE for it" response that we > > > > give on a weekly basis in the document, so we don't have to constantly > > > > say it to everyone who asks. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst | 11 ++++------- > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > > > index f12ac2316ce7..8b80e1eb7d79 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > > > @@ -79,13 +79,10 @@ not contribute to actually fixing any potential security problems. > > > > CVE assignment > > > > -------------- > > > > > > > > -The security team does not normally assign CVEs, nor do we require them > > > > -for reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and > > > > -may delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier > > > > -assigned ahead of public disclosure, they will need to contact the private > > > > -linux-distros list, described above. When such a CVE identifier is known > > > > -before a patch is provided, it is desirable to mention it in the commit > > > > -message if the reporter agrees. > > > > +The security team does not assign CVEs, nor do we require them for > > > > +reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and may > > > > +delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier > > > > +assigned, they should contact MITRE directly. > > > > > > Hmm. The language about "assigned ahead of public disclosure" was added > > > intentionally due to trouble we'd had with coordination when a CVE was > > > needed, etc. Additionally, it IS preferred to have a CVE in a patch when > > > it IS known ahead of time, so I think that should be kept. How about > > > this: > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > > index 82e29837d589..2f4060d49b31 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > > +++ b/Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst > > > @@ -81,13 +81,12 @@ the email Subject line with "[vs]" as described in the linux-distros wiki: > > > CVE assignment > > > -------------- > > > > > > -The security team does not normally assign CVEs, nor do we require them > > > -for reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and > > > -may delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier > > > -assigned ahead of public disclosure, they will need to contact the private > > > -linux-distros list, described above. When such a CVE identifier is known > > > -before a patch is provided, it is desirable to mention it in the commit > > > -message if the reporter agrees. > > > +The security team does not assign CVEs, nor do we require them for reports > > > +or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and may delay > > > +the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier assigned > > > +ahead of public disclosure, they will need to contact MITRE directly. > > > +When such a CVE identifier is known before a patch is provided, it is > > > +desirable to mention it in the commit message if the reporter agrees. > > > > I can not, in good faith, with the current mess that MITRE is going > > through, tell anyone that they should contact MITRE ahead of public > > disclosure, sorry. > > > > All I can say is "if you really want one, go ask them for one", as > > everyone keeps asking us for one to pad their resume/CV. > > > > Also note that many non-US-based companies are not allowed to contact a > > US-government-backed entity for potential security issues for obvious > > reasons. > > > > So I don't want to even give a hint that we support or request this at > > all, or that it is something that changelog texts should contain for > > security issues (for the obvious reason of them being a "hint" one way > > or another.) > > > > External groups may wish to play the CVE "game" as it facilitates their > > engineering procedures to get changes past managers, but that's not > > anything that we should be encouraging at all for all of the various > > geopolitical and corporate reasons involved in that mess. > > I generally agree with your points above, and these can be easily > summarized by indicating that the patch will not wait for this, and > suggesting that MITRE is not the only possible source: > > The security team does not assign CVEs, nor do we require them for > reports or fixes, as this can needlessly complicate the process and may > delay the bug handling. If a reporter wishes to have a CVE identifier > assigned, they should find one by themselves, for example by contacting > MITRE directly. However under no circumstances will a patch inclusion > be delayed to wait for a CVE identifier to arrive. > > This puts the responsibility for finding one in time on the reporter > depending on what they expect, and if they want it in the commit > message, they'd rather have one before reporting the problem. Oh, nice wording, let me steal that! :) thanks, greg k-h
