Hi Vegard, On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 06:30:11PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > > On 07/10/2023 16:04, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > +As such, the kernel security team strongly recommends that reporters of > > +potential security issues DO NOT contact the "linux-distros" mailing > > +list BEFORE a fix is accepted by the affected code's maintainers and you > > is s/BEFORE/UNTIL/ clearer? Probably, yes. > > +have read the linux-distros wiki page above and you fully understand the > > +requirements that doing so will impose on you and the kernel community. > > +This also means that in general it doesn't make sense to Cc: both lists > > +at once, except for coordination if a fix remains under embargo. And in > > +general, please do not Cc: the kernel security list about fixes that > > +have already been merged. > > I was thinking about this Cc: thing and would it make sense to: > > 1) have LKML and other public vger lists reject messages that include > s@k.o or (linux-)distros@ on Cc? The idea being that this is probably a > mistake -- I believe it has happened a few times recently by mistake. > > 2) have (linux-)distros@ reject NEW threads (i.e. no In-Reply-To:) that > also include s@k.o on Cc? We could include a nice message explaining why > and to please resend when a patch has been developed and/or a disclosure > is planned in the next 7 days. I don't know, maybe it would add extra config burden, but on the other hand it could avoid the mistake from newcomers who have not read the docs first (which happened a few times already), but if l-d becomes a bit more flexible and tolerant to reporters' mistakes, as now documented, it should also be less of a problem. > I guess the problem with this would be if > somebody on s@k.o does a reply-all which would add distros right back in > the loop -OR- a patch has already been developed and included. Then this would be deliberate, there would an in-reply-to so that would not be a problem. I really doubt anyone from s@k.o would Cc linux-distros anyway since it would imply disclosing some details from a reporter, and we do not do that, it's up to the reporter to do it if they want. Thanks, Willy
