|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>|
|| ||Re: [stable] Linux 18.104.22.168|
|| ||Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:42:58 -0700 (PDT)|
|| ||Greg KH <greg-AT-kroah.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> i understand and i think noone expects that. in fact, i know how much
> expertise and time it takes to determine that. but what happens when
> you do figure out the security relevance of a bug during bug submission
The issue is that I think it's then _misleading_ to mark that kind of
commit specially, when I actually believe that it's in the minority.
If people think that they are safer for only applying (or upgrading to)
certain patches that are marked as being security-specific, they are
missing all the ones that weren't marked as such. Making them even
_believe_ that the magic security marking is meaningful is simply a lie.
It's not going to be.
So why would I add some marking that I most emphatically do not believe in
myself, and think is just mostly security theater?
I generally do not remove peoples changelog entries, although I _will_
do even that if I think it's just too much of an actual exploit
description (of course - the patch itself can make the exploit fairly
clear). So you'll find CVE entries etc in the logs if you look.
But I do hope that anybody who looks for them is _aware_ that it's just a
small minority of possible problems.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that security bugs are _common_, but
especially some local DoS thing for a specific driver or filesystem or
whatever can be a big security problem for _somebody_.
to post comments)