On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:10:51PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Security processes are not something that should be hidden away in >> > it's own private corner - if there's a problem upstream needs to >> > take action on, then direct contact with upstream is necessary. We >> > need to know about security issues - even ones that are classified >> > post-commit as security issues - so we are operating with full >> > knowledge of the issues in our code and the impact of our fixes.... >> >> Agreed. I'm going to interpret your comments at being directed to the >> general audience because otherwise you're just shooting the messenger >> :). > > Right, they are not aimed at you - they are aimed at those on the > security side of the fence. I'm tired of learning about CVEs in XFS > code through chinese whispers and/or luck. Mostly I try to shield anyone not interested in CVEs from the boring process, and try to focus on just getting things marked as needing to go into stable. I don't think anyone needs to read the oss-security list if they don't want to. In this case, the fix Dan sent was part of a larger collection of security issues reported by Nico. I think the communication error here was Dan accidentally forgetting to add the Cc: stable tag. But beyond that, it was sent to the xfs list and Cc: to security, so I'm not sure it's fair to say it was hidden away. :) Besides the missing Cc: stable tag, what should future patch senders do to call attention to an issue being a security problem at the time it is being reported? -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
