Their view that security bugs are just normal bugs remains very immature and damaging. It it somewhat mitigated by Linux having so many eyes on it and so many developers, but a lot of problems in the past could have bee avoided if they adopted the stance the rest of the industry recognizes as correct.
tptacek•1h ago
From their perspective, on their project, with the constraints they operate under, bugs are just bugs. You're free to operationalize some other taxonomy of bugs in your organization; I certainly wouldn't run with "bugs are just bugs" in mine (security bugs are distinctive in that they're paired implicitly with adversaries).
To complicate matters further, it's not as if you could rely on any more "sophisticated" taxonomy from the Linux kernel team, because they're not the originators of most Linux kernel security findings, and not all the actual originators are benevolent.
rwmj•1h ago
For sure, but you don't need to file CVEs for every regular bug.
Skunkleton•20m ago
In the context of the kernel, it’s hard to say when that’s true. It’s very easy to fix some bug that resulted in a kernel crash without considering that it could possibly be part of some complex exploit chain. Basically any bug could be considered a security bug.
SSLy•11m ago
plainly, crash = DoS = security issue = CVE.
QED.
JCattheATM•20m ago
> From their perspective, on their project, with the constraints they operate under, bugs are just bugs.
That's a pretty poor justification. Their perspective is wrong, and their constraints don't prevent them from treating security bugs differently as they should.
ada0000•14m ago
> almost any bugfix at the level of an operating system kernel can be a “security issue” given the issues involved (memory leaks, denial of service, information leaks, etc.)
On the level of the Linux kernel, this does seem convincing. There is no shared user space on Linux where you know how each component will react/recover in the face of unexpected kernel behaviour, and no SKUs targeting specific use cases in which e.g. a denial of service might be a worse issue than on desktop.
I guess CVEs provide some of this classification, but they seem to cause drama amongst kernel people.
beanjuiceII•1h ago
did you read it? because that's not their view at all
firesteelrain•42m ago
“A bug is a bug” is about communication and prioritization, not ignoring security. Greg’s post spells that out pretty clearly.
akerl_•15m ago
This feels almost too obvious to be worth saying, but “the rest of the industry” does not in fact have a uniform shared stance on this.
DebugDruid•5m ago
Sometimes I dream about a 100% secure OS. Maybe formal verification is the key, or Rust, I don’t know. But I would love to know that I can't be hacked.
JCattheATM•1h ago
tptacek•1h ago
To complicate matters further, it's not as if you could rely on any more "sophisticated" taxonomy from the Linux kernel team, because they're not the originators of most Linux kernel security findings, and not all the actual originators are benevolent.
rwmj•1h ago
Skunkleton•20m ago
SSLy•11m ago
QED.
JCattheATM•20m ago
That's a pretty poor justification. Their perspective is wrong, and their constraints don't prevent them from treating security bugs differently as they should.
ada0000•14m ago
On the level of the Linux kernel, this does seem convincing. There is no shared user space on Linux where you know how each component will react/recover in the face of unexpected kernel behaviour, and no SKUs targeting specific use cases in which e.g. a denial of service might be a worse issue than on desktop.
I guess CVEs provide some of this classification, but they seem to cause drama amongst kernel people.
beanjuiceII•1h ago
firesteelrain•42m ago
akerl_•15m ago