|| ||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu> |
|| ||pageexec-AT-freemail.hu |
|| ||Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to
|| ||Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:51:35 +0200|
|| ||Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi-AT-firstfloor.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto-AT-mit.edu>, x86-AT-kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org, Jesper Juhl <jj-AT-chaosbits.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp-AT-alien8.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan-AT-infradead.org>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich-AT-novell.com>,
richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger-AT-gmail.com>,
Mikael Pettersson <mikpe-AT-it.uu.se>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst-AT-gmail.com>,
Louis Rilling <Louis.Rilling-AT-kerlabs.com>,
|| ||Article, Thread
* firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 6 Jun 2011 at 21:25, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > [...] it goes like 'I am not willing to do A because it would
> > > help script kiddies but I'd rather do B that would help script
> > > kiddies'. with A = 'disclose security bugs' and B = 'keep the
> > > last roadblock that prevents full ASLR'.
> > No, that's wrong, the logic goes like this:
> > if i do A then it has X1 advantages and Y1 disadvantages.
> > if i do B then it has X2 advantages and Y2 disadvantages.
> > The Y1 and Y2 set of disadvantages can both include "making it
> > easier for script kiddies" but the sets of advantages and
> > disadvantages can also include MANY OTHER considerations, making
> > the decision unique in each case.
> Sure, i was only reflecting on what Linus himself kept insisting on
> in the past.
From what i've seen his say in past discussions he clearly applied
the common-sense logic i outlined above, not the twisted logic you
You paraphrased Linus in such a way:
" it goes like 'I am not willing to do A because it would
help script kiddies but I'd rather do B that would help script
kiddies'. with A = 'disclose security bugs' and B = 'keep the
last roadblock that prevents full ASLR'.
IMO your are blatantly misrepresenting Linus's opinion.
> > To translate it to this specific case (extremely simplifed, so
> > please don't nit-pick that my descriptions of advantages and
> > disadvantages are not precise nor complete):
> i don't even need to get there, you already failed right in the
> very first sentence, very impressive. no. 'not precise' is an
> > A) "i put a zero day exploit and a CVE code into a changelog"
> > Advantages: - it describes the problem more fully
> > Disadvantages: - it makes it easier for people (including script kiddies) do harm faster
> > - creates a false, misleading category for "security bugs"
> you try to set things up to serve your argument but it's not the things
> we've ever talked about (IOW, this is a strawman).
> in particular, i've never ever requested exploits in commit logs
> (and i don't remember anyone else who has, do you?). why do you
> keep thinking in only extremes? is it so impossible to simply state
> a CVE and the generic bug class (CWE) that the commit fixes? what
> Linus has insisted on is 'no greppable words', that's diametrically
> opposite to 'full disclosure' that you guys say you're supposedly
You contradict yourself in that paragraph (see below).
I simply disagree with putting easily greppable words like 'CVE' into
the changelogs of bugs, due to what i already said above:
Disadvantages: - it makes it easier for people (including script kiddies) do harm faster
- creates a false, misleading category for "security bugs"
> so if you omit the exploits that noone really requested (and i
> don't even know why they'd be useful in a commit) then suddenly the
> script kiddies are no longer helped.
> and you have yet to explain what is false and misleading about the
> security bug category. you used these words yourself several times
> today, how do you explain that? why does the CVE exist? why does
> bugtraq exist? are all those people discussing 'false and
> misleading' things? why does your employer release security errata?
> etc, etc.
My arguments against putting easily greppable CVE numbers into
changelogs are very simple:
- in many cases it is equivalent to providing a zero-day exploit
in the changelog, to any reasonably skilled exploit writer
And you yourself said that you don't want to put zero-day exploits
into changelogs, so why are you even arguing?
- it's misleading because IMO CVE tagged bugs do not cover all
bugs that matter, they are self-selected bugs often highlighted
by attention-seeking participants of the security circus.
The primary driving force in that industry is attention seeking,
*not* the maximization of security - and often they act in direct
conflict to better security ...
Maximizing security is hard: whether a bug has security implications
is highly usecase and bug dependent, and the true security impact of
bugs is not discovered in the majority of cases. I estimate that in
*ANY* OS there's probably at least 10 times more bugs with some
potential security impact than ever get a CVE number...
So putting CVEs into the changelog is harmful, pointless, misleading
and would just create a fake "scare users" and "gain attention"
industry (coupled with a "delay bug fixes for a long time" aspect, if
paid well enough) that operates based on issuing CVEs and 'solving'
them - which disincentivises the *real* bugfixes and the
non-self-selected bug fixers.
I'd like to strengthen the natural 'bug fixing' industry, not the
security circus industry.
[ But this is a higher level meta argument based on opinion so it's
probably rather pointless to argue it with you as such arguments
need a certain level of mutual trust to discuss efficiently. ]
> > > but it's very simple logic Ingo.
> > Please drop the condescending tone, i think it should be clear to
> > you by now that i have a good basis to disagree with you.
> i'm a firm believer of instant karma, it seems to work on people
> like yourself or Linus really well. in somewhat profane but simple
> english: if you behave as an asshole i will treat you as one, if
> you believe i treated you as an asshole it's because i think you
> acted as one, and if you don't understand why then you're welcome
> to 1. look into yourself and figure it out yourself, 2. ask me.
> what is not going to get you anywhere is if you talk to me and
> others from the high horse, you must be a lot better than your
> current self for anyone to tolerate it.
I simply disagreed with you and argued with you without insulting you
in such a tone.
Does disagreeing with you make me an 'asshole'?
But the thing is, i probably shouldnt bother arguing with you since i
have trouble convincing you about very obvious things like the simple
fact that putting more instructions into the page fault path ...
slows it down, why should i bother arguing with you here?
You are not willing to listen and amazingly, in all these recent
discussions you've never *ever* conceded a single point - even in
cases where you were proven wrong beyond recognition!
to post comments)