Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 3 Jul 2023 12:26:32 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, security@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net,
        workflows@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: clarify CVE
 handling
Message-ID: <202307031217.95B8803@keescook>
References: <2023063020-throat-pantyhose-f110@gregkh>
 <2023063022-retouch-kerosene-7e4a@gregkh>
 <202306301114.E199B136@keescook>
 <2023070213-capacity-moneybags-3668@gregkh>
 <ZKJJoK4kyOCEYcOR@1wt.eu>
 <2023070335-groggily-catfish-9ad5@gregkh>
 <202307031131.51907BC65@keescook>
 <2023070329-mangy-dipping-2ebd@gregkh>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2023070329-mangy-dipping-2ebd@gregkh>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 03, 2023 at 09:05:15PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> 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 :)

Okay, fair, though please include something about it in the commit
log so that other folks with concerns similar to Mathias Krause's will
be answered:
https://infosec.exchange/@minipli/110632971830936754

I still think this version of the sentence is more readable:

However under no circumstances will patch publication be delayed for
CVE identifier assignment.

"patch inclusion" is less clear to me that "publication", and "be
delayed to wait for" is redundant: a delay is a wait, and "to arrive"
is just the assignment, which is the subject of the paragraph, so better
to keep the language for that consistent.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook