forked from Minki/linux
544b03da39
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>
90 lines
3.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
90 lines
3.9 KiB
ReStructuredText
.. _securitybugs:
|
|
|
|
Security bugs
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
Linux kernel developers take security very seriously. As such, we'd
|
|
like to know when a security bug is found so that it can be fixed and
|
|
disclosed as quickly as possible. Please report security bugs to the
|
|
Linux kernel security team.
|
|
|
|
Contact
|
|
-------
|
|
|
|
The Linux kernel security team can be contacted by email at
|
|
<security@kernel.org>. This is a private list of security officers
|
|
who will help verify the bug report and develop and release a fix.
|
|
If you already have a fix, please include it with your report, as
|
|
that can speed up the process considerably. It is possible that the
|
|
security team will bring in extra help from area maintainers to
|
|
understand and fix the security vulnerability.
|
|
|
|
As it is with any bug, the more information provided the easier it
|
|
will be to diagnose and fix. Please review the procedure outlined in
|
|
admin-guide/reporting-bugs.rst if you are unclear about what
|
|
information is helpful. Any exploit code is very helpful and will not
|
|
be released without consent from the reporter unless it has already been
|
|
made public.
|
|
|
|
Disclosure and embargoed information
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The security list is not a disclosure channel. For that, see Coordination
|
|
below.
|
|
|
|
Once a robust fix has been developed, the release process starts. Fixes
|
|
for publicly known bugs are released immediately.
|
|
|
|
Although our preference is to release fixes for publicly undisclosed bugs
|
|
as soon as they become available, this may be postponed at the request of
|
|
the reporter or an affected party for up to 7 calendar days from the start
|
|
of the release process, with an exceptional extension to 14 calendar days
|
|
if it is agreed that the criticality of the bug requires more time. The
|
|
only valid reason for deferring the publication of a fix is to accommodate
|
|
the logistics of QA and large scale rollouts which require release
|
|
coordination.
|
|
|
|
Whilst embargoed information may be shared with trusted individuals in
|
|
order to develop a fix, such information will not be published alongside
|
|
the fix or on any other disclosure channel without the permission of the
|
|
reporter. This includes but is not limited to the original bug report
|
|
and followup discussions (if any), exploits, CVE information or the
|
|
identity of the reporter.
|
|
|
|
In other words our only interest is in getting bugs fixed. All other
|
|
information submitted to the security list and any followup discussions
|
|
of the report are treated confidentially even after the embargo has been
|
|
lifted, in perpetuity.
|
|
|
|
Coordination
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
Fixes for sensitive bugs, such as those that might lead to privilege
|
|
escalations, may need to be coordinated with the private
|
|
<linux-distros@vs.openwall.org> mailing list so that distribution vendors
|
|
are well prepared to issue a fixed kernel upon public disclosure of the
|
|
upstream fix. Distros will need some time to test the proposed patch and
|
|
will generally request at least a few days of embargo, and vendor update
|
|
publication prefers to happen Tuesday through Thursday. When appropriate,
|
|
the security team can assist with this coordination, or the reporter can
|
|
include linux-distros from the start. In this case, remember to prefix
|
|
the email Subject line with "[vs]" as described in the linux-distros wiki:
|
|
<http://oss-security.openwall.org/wiki/mailing-lists/distros#how-to-use-the-lists>
|
|
|
|
CVE assignment
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
The security team does not normally 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 ahead of public disclosure, they will need to contact the private
|
|
linux-distros list, described above. When such a CVE identifier is known
|
|
before a patch is provided, it is desirable to mention it in the commit
|
|
message if the reporter agrees.
|
|
|
|
Non-disclosure agreements
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
The Linux kernel security team is not a formal body and therefore unable
|
|
to enter any non-disclosure agreements.
|