On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 11:35:37AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 05:00:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 06:08:00AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > 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! :) > > Yeah, this is good. The last sentence is a little hard to parse, so how > about this, with a little more rationale expansion: > > However under no circumstances will patch publication be delayed for > CVE identifier assignment. Getting fixes landed takes precedence; the > CVE database entry will already reference the commit, so there is no loss > of information if the CVE is assigned later. "simple is better" should be the key here, reading a wall of text is hard for people, so let me just keep the one new sentance that Willy proposed and if people still struggle with the whole CVEs and security@k.o mess in the future, we can revise it again. Also, there is not really a "CVE database", I think that's what NVD from NIST does and CNNVD from China does, and "Something to be named in the future soon" will do for the EU. There is a "CVE List" at cve.org, but that thing is always out of date, and for all of this I don't want to have to try to explain it in our document as that's nothing we want to mess with :) thanks, greg k-h
