Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] Security

[Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>]

On 09/22/2018 06:16 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> Sort of related to this.  I think we should have a public email list to
> discuss potential security problems.  We've actually talked about making
> the security@kernel.org list public at some point when people started
> flooding it with static checker warnings about potential SELinux missing
> checks.
> 
> The downsides are 1) Maintainers will be annoyed.  They don't want me or
> anyone to forward them static checker output (they are polite about
> this).  But they also want to be the first to know about real bugs found
> by static analysis.  These are conflicting and impossible desires...  2)
> Script kiddies will follow the list and learn about bugs earlier.  I
> don't see this as a huge issue if we restricted it to driver specific
> bugs.
> 
> Security work is lonely.  Everyone expects *all* the bugs to be fixed
> perfectly and in absolute secrecy.
> 
> Every other special interest group has a mailing list linux in
> automotive or small kernels.  Security would be the same.  Also I
> sometimes see obviously bad security fixes.  There is one integer
> overflow fixes which I have re-fixed three times.  Older me is able to
> review other people's integer overflow fixes and spot bugs.  It would be
> good to have a way to share that knowledge.
> 
> Most maintainers do not want to deal with more than a 5% false positive
> rate in static checker warnings.  I, on the other hand, regularly deal
> with a 95% false positive checks and there are probably other people
> like me who can spend a whole day looking and feel happy to find one
> bug.
> 

I think there's two different categories here: there's a general
security interest group and security response. security@kernel.org
is supposed to be security response for coordination. kernel-hardening
kind of fills the security interest list but maybe it's still separate.
I do support having more discussion of security bugs publicly while
also having a discussion about security response since we get a non-zero
number of reports that requires more careful handling.

Thanks,
Laura