| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
commit 544b03da39e2d7b4961d3163976ed4bfb1fac509 upstream.
At the request of the reporter, the Linux kernel security team offers to
postpone the publishing of a fix for up to 5 business days from the date
of a report.
While it is generally undesirable to keep a fix private after it has
been developed, this short window is intended to allow distributions to
package the fix into their kernel builds and permits early inclusion of
the security team in the case of a co-ordinated disclosure with other
parties. Unfortunately, discussions with major Linux distributions and
cloud providers has revealed that 5 business days is not sufficient to
achieve either of these two goals.
As an example, cloud providers need to roll out KVM security fixes to a
global fleet of hosts with sufficient early ramp-up and monitoring. An
end-to-end timeline of less than two weeks dramatically cuts into the
amount of early validation and increases the chance of guest-visible
regressions.
The consequence of this timeline mismatch is that security issues are
commonly fixed without the involvement of the Linux kernel security team
and are instead analysed and addressed by an ad-hoc group of developers
across companies contributing to Linux. In some cases, mainline (and
therefore the official stable kernels) can be left to languish for
extended periods of time. This undermines the Linux kernel security
process and puts upstream developers in a difficult position should they
find themselves involved with an undisclosed security problem that they
are unable to report due to restrictions from their employer.
To accommodate the needs of these users of the Linux kernel and
encourage them to engage with the Linux security team when security
issues are first uncovered, extend the maximum period for which fixes
may be delayed to 7 calendar days, or 14 calendar days in exceptional
cases, where the logistics of QA and large scale rollouts specifically
need to be accommodated. This brings parity with the linux-distros@
maximum embargo period of 14 calendar days.
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Cc: Amit Shah <aams@amazon.com>
Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Co-developed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Co-developed-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse <dwmw@amazon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Reviewed-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
commit 14fdc2c5318ae420e68496975f48dc1dbef52649 upstream.
The Linux kernel security team has been accused of rejecting the idea of
security embargoes. This is incorrect, and could dissuade people from
reporting security issues to us under the false assumption that the
issue would leak prematurely.
Clarify the handling of embargoed information in our process
documentation.
Co-developed-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Acked-by: Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
I think we need to soften the language a bit. It might scare folks
off, especially the:
We prefer to fully disclose the bug as soon as possible.
which is not really the case. Linus says:
It's not full disclosure, it's not coordinated disclosure,
and it's not "no disclosure". It's more like just "timely
open fixes".
I changed a bit of the wording in here, but mostly to remove the word
"disclosure" since it seems to mean very specific things to people
that we do not mean here.
Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Acked-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
|
|
The kernel security team is regularly asked to provide CVE identifiers,
which we don't normally do. This updates the documentation to mention
this and adds some more details about coordination and patch handling
that come up regularly. Based on an earlier draft by Willy Tarreau.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
|
|
The previous patch renamed several files that are cross-referenced
along the Kernel documentation. Adjust the links to point to
the right places.
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
|
|
Place README, REPORTING-BUGS, SecurityBugs and kernel-parameters
on an user's manual book.
As we'll be numbering the user's manual, remove the manual
numbering from SecurityBugs.
Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com>
|
Will Deacon
Dave Hansen
Kees Cook
Mauro Carvalho Chehab