Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:23:42 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
Cc:     Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>, corbet@lwn.net, will@kernel.org,
        peterz@infradead.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        tyhicks@canonical.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Documentation/security-bugs: provide more information
 about linux-distros
Message-ID: <201907231520.D659BD32@keescook>
References: <20190717231103.13949-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <201907181457.D61AC061C@keescook>
 <20190719003919.GC4240@sasha-vm>
 <201907181833.EF0D93C@keescook>
 <20190719084215.GA24691@openwall.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190719084215.GA24691@openwall.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 10:42:15AM +0200, Solar Designer wrote:
> - The reporter having been directed to post from elsewhere (and I
> suspect this documentation file) without being aware of list policy.

Perhaps specify "linux-distros@" without a domain, so it's more clear?
Or re-split the Wiki into two pages to avoid confusion?

> - The reporter not mentioning (and sometimes not replying even when
> asked) whether they're also coordinating with security@k.o or whether
> they want someone on linux-distros to help coordinate with security@k.o.
> (Maybe this is something we want to write about here.)

Yeah, that seems useful to include in both places.

> - The Linux kernel bug having been introduced too recently to be of much
> interest to distros.

Right; that'd be good to add as well. I see a lot of panic on twitter,
for example, about bugs that only ever existed in -rc releases.

> > Sending to the distros@ list risks exposing Linux-only flaws to non-Linux
> > distros.
> 
> Right.
> 
> > This has caused leaks in the past
> 
> Do you mean leaks to *BSD security teams or to the public?  I'm not
> aware of past leaks to the public via the non-Linux distros present on
> the distros@ list.  Are you?

I don't know the origin of the leaks, but it only happened when distros@
was used instead of linux-distros@. I think this happened with DirtyCOW,
specifically.

-- 
Kees Cook