Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 10:49:36 -0800
From: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com>
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>, akpm@osdl.org, torvalds@osdl.org,
       alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: thoughts on kernel security issues
Message-ID: <20050112104936.U469@build.pdx.osdl.net>
References: <20050112094807.K24171@build.pdx.osdl.net> <20050112150611.GB32024@logos.cnet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20050112150611.GB32024@logos.cnet>; from marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com on Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 01:06:12PM -0200
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2667
Lines: 60

* Marcelo Tosatti (marcelo.tosatti@cyclades.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 09:48:07AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote:
> > Right now most things come in via 1) lkml, 2) maintainers, 3) vendor-sec.
> > It would be nice to have a more centralized place for all of this
> > information to help track it, make sure things don't fall through
> > the cracks, and make sure of timely fix and disclosure.
> 
> I very much like the idea and I also think a "official" list of kernel security issues and 
> respective fixes is very much required, since not every Linux distribution is supposed
> to have kernel developers working for them, going through the whole changelogs 
> looking for security issues, which is just silly.
> 
> Disclosing and bookkeeping of security issues is a job of the Linux kernel team.

Yes, I agree.

> Alan used to list down security fixes between each v2.2 release, v2.4 has never 
> had such an official list (I'm trying to write CAN numbers on the changelogs lately), 
> neither v2.6. Its not a practical thing for Linus/Andrew to do, its a lot of
> work.
> 
> It would be interesting to have all developers to know about such initiative 
> and have them send their security fixes to be logged and disclosed - its obviously
> impossible for you to read all changes in the kernel. And have Linus/Andrew 
> advocate in favour of it.
> 
> IMO such initiative needs to be known by all contributors for
> it to be effective.

Indeed, it would be most effective as a collective effort.  Of course,
we'll never make 100%, but we could do better than now.

> > In addition, I think it's worth considering keeping the current stable
> > kernel version moving forward (point releases ala 2.6.x.y) for critical
> > (mostly security) bugs.  If nothing else, I can provide a subset of -ac
> > patches that are only that.
> 
> Yes, -ac has been playing that role. It is general consensus that 
> such point releases are required. 
> 
> Linus doesnt do it because it is too much extra work him (and he is focused
> on other things), glad you have stepped up.
> 
> > I volunteer to help with _all_ of the above.  It's what I'm here for.
> > Use me, abuse me ;-)
> 
> You've been doing a lot of security work/auditing in the kernel for a long time, 
> which fits the job position nicely.
> 
> I'm willing to help.

Great, thanks!
-chris
-- 
Linux Security Modules     http://lsm.immunix.org     http://lsm.bkbits.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/