From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD579CB7 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F06A8B for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 19:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 21:26:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1536418829.22308.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: References: <20180908082141.15d72684@coco.lan> <20180908113411.GA3111@kroah.com> <1536418829.22308.1.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Handling of embargoed security issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, James Bottomley wrote: > I think we might benefit from a discussion of whether we could have > handled Meltdown/Spectre better in an NDA framework ... Well, at the end of the day, we actually did handle it in the NDA framework (otherwise the end result wrt. stable and distros really wouldn't look like it did by the release date), but everything else (timing, information sharing, feedback channels to the "owners", ...) didn't really work all that well. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs