From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF26E95A66 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 16:40:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344025AbjJGQka (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Oct 2023 12:40:30 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46994 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1343956AbjJGQk3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Oct 2023 12:40:29 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu (ded1.1wt.eu [163.172.96.212]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A02EBA; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 09:40:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 397GdaTL026853; Sat, 7 Oct 2023 18:39:36 +0200 Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2023 18:39:36 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Vegard Nossum Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, security@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, workflows@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Kees Cook , Solar Designer Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Documentation: security-bugs.rst: linux-distros relaxed their rules Message-ID: <20231007163936.GA26837@1wt.eu> References: <20231007140454.25419-1-w@1wt.eu> <5ae47535-b6e0-8b48-4d59-a167e37c7fcc@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5ae47535-b6e0-8b48-4d59-a167e37c7fcc@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org Hi Vegard, On Sat, Oct 07, 2023 at 06:30:11PM +0200, Vegard Nossum wrote: > > On 07/10/2023 16:04, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > +As such, the kernel security team strongly recommends that reporters of > > +potential security issues DO NOT contact the "linux-distros" mailing > > +list BEFORE a fix is accepted by the affected code's maintainers and you > > is s/BEFORE/UNTIL/ clearer? Probably, yes. > > +have read the linux-distros wiki page above and you fully understand the > > +requirements that doing so will impose on you and the kernel community. > > +This also means that in general it doesn't make sense to Cc: both lists > > +at once, except for coordination if a fix remains under embargo. And in > > +general, please do not Cc: the kernel security list about fixes that > > +have already been merged. > > I was thinking about this Cc: thing and would it make sense to: > > 1) have LKML and other public vger lists reject messages that include > s@k.o or (linux-)distros@ on Cc? The idea being that this is probably a > mistake -- I believe it has happened a few times recently by mistake. > > 2) have (linux-)distros@ reject NEW threads (i.e. no In-Reply-To:) that > also include s@k.o on Cc? We could include a nice message explaining why > and to please resend when a patch has been developed and/or a disclosure > is planned in the next 7 days. I don't know, maybe it would add extra config burden, but on the other hand it could avoid the mistake from newcomers who have not read the docs first (which happened a few times already), but if l-d becomes a bit more flexible and tolerant to reporters' mistakes, as now documented, it should also be less of a problem. > I guess the problem with this would be if > somebody on s@k.o does a reply-all which would add distros right back in > the loop -OR- a patch has already been developed and included. Then this would be deliberate, there would an in-reply-to so that would not be a problem. I really doubt anyone from s@k.o would Cc linux-distros anyway since it would imply disclosing some details from a reporter, and we do not do that, it's up to the reporter to do it if they want. Thanks, Willy