|From:||Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH v5 9/9] x86-64: Add CONFIG_UNSAFE_VSYSCALLS to feature-removal-schedule|
|Date:||Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:51:35 +0200|
|Cc:||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>, Valdis.Kletnieks-AT-vt.edu|
* 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 provided. 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 > understatement. > > > 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 > doing. 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: Firstly: - 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? Secondly: - 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! Thanks, Ingo
Copyright © 2011, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds