mirror of
				https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux
				synced 2025-11-04 08:34:47 +10:00 
			
		
		
		
	The current AMD contact info email address is incorrect, so fix it up to use the correct one. Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> Cc: Alex Shi <alexs@kernel.org> Cc: Yanteng Si <siyanteng@loongson.cn> Cc: Hu Haowen <src.res@email.cn> Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> Acked-by: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220729134517.2284700-1-gregkh@linuxfoundation.org Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
		
			
				
	
	
		
			316 lines
		
	
	
		
			13 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			316 lines
		
	
	
		
			13 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			ReStructuredText
		
	
	
	
	
	
.. _embargoed_hardware_issues:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Embargoed hardware issues
 | 
						|
=========================
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Scope
 | 
						|
-----
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Hardware issues which result in security problems are a different category
 | 
						|
of security bugs than pure software bugs which only affect the Linux
 | 
						|
kernel.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Hardware issues like Meltdown, Spectre, L1TF etc. must be treated
 | 
						|
differently because they usually affect all Operating Systems ("OS") and
 | 
						|
therefore need coordination across different OS vendors, distributions,
 | 
						|
hardware vendors and other parties. For some of the issues, software
 | 
						|
mitigations can depend on microcode or firmware updates, which need further
 | 
						|
coordination.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
.. _Contact:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Contact
 | 
						|
-------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The Linux kernel hardware security team is separate from the regular Linux
 | 
						|
kernel security team.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The team only handles the coordination of embargoed hardware security
 | 
						|
issues.  Reports of pure software security bugs in the Linux kernel are not
 | 
						|
handled by this team and the reporter will be guided to contact the regular
 | 
						|
Linux kernel security team (:ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/
 | 
						|
<securitybugs>`) instead.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The team can be contacted by email at <hardware-security@kernel.org>. This
 | 
						|
is a private list of security officers who will help you to coordinate an
 | 
						|
issue according to our documented process.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The list is encrypted and email to the list can be sent by either PGP or
 | 
						|
S/MIME encrypted and must be signed with the reporter's PGP key or S/MIME
 | 
						|
certificate. The list's PGP key and S/MIME certificate are available from
 | 
						|
the following URLs:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  - PGP: https://www.kernel.org/static/files/hardware-security.asc
 | 
						|
  - S/MIME: https://www.kernel.org/static/files/hardware-security.crt
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
While hardware security issues are often handled by the affected hardware
 | 
						|
vendor, we welcome contact from researchers or individuals who have
 | 
						|
identified a potential hardware flaw.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Hardware security officers
 | 
						|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The current team of hardware security officers:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  - Linus Torvalds (Linux Foundation Fellow)
 | 
						|
  - Greg Kroah-Hartman (Linux Foundation Fellow)
 | 
						|
  - Thomas Gleixner (Linux Foundation Fellow)
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Operation of mailing-lists
 | 
						|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The encrypted mailing-lists which are used in our process are hosted on
 | 
						|
Linux Foundation's IT infrastructure. By providing this service, members
 | 
						|
of Linux Foundation's IT operations personnel technically have the
 | 
						|
ability to access the embargoed information, but are obliged to
 | 
						|
confidentiality by their employment contract. Linux Foundation IT
 | 
						|
personnel are also responsible for operating and managing the rest of
 | 
						|
kernel.org infrastructure.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The Linux Foundation's current director of IT Project infrastructure is
 | 
						|
Konstantin Ryabitsev.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Non-disclosure agreements
 | 
						|
-------------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The Linux kernel hardware security team is not a formal body and therefore
 | 
						|
unable to enter into any non-disclosure agreements.  The kernel community
 | 
						|
is aware of the sensitive nature of such issues and offers a Memorandum of
 | 
						|
Understanding instead.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Memorandum of Understanding
 | 
						|
---------------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The Linux kernel community has a deep understanding of the requirement to
 | 
						|
keep hardware security issues under embargo for coordination between
 | 
						|
different OS vendors, distributors, hardware vendors and other parties.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The Linux kernel community has successfully handled hardware security
 | 
						|
issues in the past and has the necessary mechanisms in place to allow
 | 
						|
community compliant development under embargo restrictions.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The Linux kernel community has a dedicated hardware security team for
 | 
						|
initial contact, which oversees the process of handling such issues under
 | 
						|
embargo rules.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The hardware security team identifies the developers (domain experts) who
 | 
						|
will form the initial response team for a particular issue. The initial
 | 
						|
response team can bring in further developers (domain experts) to address
 | 
						|
the issue in the best technical way.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
All involved developers pledge to adhere to the embargo rules and to keep
 | 
						|
the received information confidential. Violation of the pledge will lead to
 | 
						|
immediate exclusion from the current issue and removal from all related
 | 
						|
mailing-lists. In addition, the hardware security team will also exclude
 | 
						|
the offender from future issues. The impact of this consequence is a highly
 | 
						|
effective deterrent in our community. In case a violation happens the
 | 
						|
hardware security team will inform the involved parties immediately. If you
 | 
						|
or anyone becomes aware of a potential violation, please report it
 | 
						|
immediately to the Hardware security officers.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Process
 | 
						|
^^^^^^^
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Due to the globally distributed nature of Linux kernel development,
 | 
						|
face-to-face meetings are almost impossible to address hardware security
 | 
						|
issues.  Phone conferences are hard to coordinate due to time zones and
 | 
						|
other factors and should be only used when absolutely necessary. Encrypted
 | 
						|
email has been proven to be the most effective and secure communication
 | 
						|
method for these types of issues.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Start of Disclosure
 | 
						|
"""""""""""""""""""
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Disclosure starts by contacting the Linux kernel hardware security team by
 | 
						|
email. This initial contact should contain a description of the problem and
 | 
						|
a list of any known affected hardware. If your organization builds or
 | 
						|
distributes the affected hardware, we encourage you to also consider what
 | 
						|
other hardware could be affected.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The hardware security team will provide an incident-specific encrypted
 | 
						|
mailing-list which will be used for initial discussion with the reporter,
 | 
						|
further disclosure and coordination.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The hardware security team will provide the disclosing party a list of
 | 
						|
developers (domain experts) who should be informed initially about the
 | 
						|
issue after confirming with the developers  that they will adhere to this
 | 
						|
Memorandum of Understanding and the documented process. These developers
 | 
						|
form the initial response team and will be responsible for handling the
 | 
						|
issue after initial contact. The hardware security team is supporting the
 | 
						|
response team, but is not necessarily involved in the mitigation
 | 
						|
development process.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
While individual developers might be covered by a non-disclosure agreement
 | 
						|
via their employer, they cannot enter individual non-disclosure agreements
 | 
						|
in their role as Linux kernel developers. They will, however, agree to
 | 
						|
adhere to this documented process and the Memorandum of Understanding.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The disclosing party should provide a list of contacts for all other
 | 
						|
entities who have already been, or should be, informed about the issue.
 | 
						|
This serves several purposes:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 - The list of disclosed entities allows communication across the
 | 
						|
   industry, e.g. other OS vendors, HW vendors, etc.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 - The disclosed entities can be contacted to name experts who should
 | 
						|
   participate in the mitigation development.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 - If an expert which is required to handle an issue is employed by an
 | 
						|
   listed entity or member of an listed entity, then the response teams can
 | 
						|
   request the disclosure of that expert from that entity. This ensures
 | 
						|
   that the expert is also part of the entity's response team.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Disclosure
 | 
						|
""""""""""
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The disclosing party provides detailed information to the initial response
 | 
						|
team via the specific encrypted mailing-list.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
From our experience the technical documentation of these issues is usually
 | 
						|
a sufficient starting point and further technical clarification is best
 | 
						|
done via email.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Mitigation development
 | 
						|
""""""""""""""""""""""
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The initial response team sets up an encrypted mailing-list or repurposes
 | 
						|
an existing one if appropriate.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Using a mailing-list is close to the normal Linux development process and
 | 
						|
has been successfully used in developing mitigations for various hardware
 | 
						|
security issues in the past.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The mailing-list operates in the same way as normal Linux development.
 | 
						|
Patches are posted, discussed and reviewed and if agreed on applied to a
 | 
						|
non-public git repository which is only accessible to the participating
 | 
						|
developers via a secure connection. The repository contains the main
 | 
						|
development branch against the mainline kernel and backport branches for
 | 
						|
stable kernel versions as necessary.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The initial response team will identify further experts from the Linux
 | 
						|
kernel developer community as needed. Bringing in experts can happen at any
 | 
						|
time of the development process and needs to be handled in a timely manner.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If an expert is employed by or member of an entity on the disclosure list
 | 
						|
provided by the disclosing party, then participation will be requested from
 | 
						|
the relevant entity.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If not, then the disclosing party will be informed about the experts
 | 
						|
participation. The experts are covered by the Memorandum of Understanding
 | 
						|
and the disclosing party is requested to acknowledge the participation. In
 | 
						|
case that the disclosing party has a compelling reason to object, then this
 | 
						|
objection has to be raised within five work days and resolved with the
 | 
						|
incident team immediately. If the disclosing party does not react within
 | 
						|
five work days this is taken as silent acknowledgement.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
After acknowledgement or resolution of an objection the expert is disclosed
 | 
						|
by the incident team and brought into the development process.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Coordinated release
 | 
						|
"""""""""""""""""""
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The involved parties will negotiate the date and time where the embargo
 | 
						|
ends. At that point the prepared mitigations are integrated into the
 | 
						|
relevant kernel trees and published.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
While we understand that hardware security issues need coordinated embargo
 | 
						|
time, the embargo time should be constrained to the minimum time which is
 | 
						|
required for all involved parties to develop, test and prepare the
 | 
						|
mitigations. Extending embargo time artificially to meet conference talk
 | 
						|
dates or other non-technical reasons is creating more work and burden for
 | 
						|
the involved developers and response teams as the patches need to be kept
 | 
						|
up to date in order to follow the ongoing upstream kernel development,
 | 
						|
which might create conflicting changes.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
CVE assignment
 | 
						|
""""""""""""""
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Neither the hardware security team nor the initial response team assign
 | 
						|
CVEs, nor are CVEs required for the development process. If CVEs are
 | 
						|
provided by the disclosing party they can be used for documentation
 | 
						|
purposes.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Process ambassadors
 | 
						|
-------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
For assistance with this process we have established ambassadors in various
 | 
						|
organizations, who can answer questions about or provide guidance on the
 | 
						|
reporting process and further handling. Ambassadors are not involved in the
 | 
						|
disclosure of a particular issue, unless requested by a response team or by
 | 
						|
an involved disclosed party. The current ambassadors list:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  ============= ========================================================
 | 
						|
  AMD		Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
 | 
						|
  Ampere	Darren Hart <darren@os.amperecomputing.com>
 | 
						|
  ARM		Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
 | 
						|
  IBM Power	Anton Blanchard <anton@linux.ibm.com>
 | 
						|
  IBM Z		Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
 | 
						|
  Intel		Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
 | 
						|
  Qualcomm	Trilok Soni <tsoni@codeaurora.org>
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Microsoft	James Morris <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com>
 | 
						|
  VMware
 | 
						|
  Xen		Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Canonical	John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
 | 
						|
  Debian	Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
 | 
						|
  Oracle	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
 | 
						|
  Red Hat	Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
 | 
						|
  SUSE		Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  Amazon
 | 
						|
  Google	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
  GCC
 | 
						|
  LLVM		Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
 | 
						|
  ============= ========================================================
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
If you want your organization to be added to the ambassadors list, please
 | 
						|
contact the hardware security team. The nominated ambassador has to
 | 
						|
understand and support our process fully and is ideally well connected in
 | 
						|
the Linux kernel community.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Encrypted mailing-lists
 | 
						|
-----------------------
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
We use encrypted mailing-lists for communication. The operating principle
 | 
						|
of these lists is that email sent to the list is encrypted either with the
 | 
						|
list's PGP key or with the list's S/MIME certificate. The mailing-list
 | 
						|
software decrypts the email and re-encrypts it individually for each
 | 
						|
subscriber with the subscriber's PGP key or S/MIME certificate. Details
 | 
						|
about the mailing-list software and the setup which is used to ensure the
 | 
						|
security of the lists and protection of the data can be found here:
 | 
						|
https://korg.wiki.kernel.org/userdoc/remail.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
List keys
 | 
						|
^^^^^^^^^
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
For initial contact see :ref:`Contact`. For incident specific mailing-lists
 | 
						|
the key and S/MIME certificate are conveyed to the subscribers by email
 | 
						|
sent from the specific list.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Subscription to incident specific lists
 | 
						|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Subscription is handled by the response teams. Disclosed parties who want
 | 
						|
to participate in the communication send a list of potential subscribers to
 | 
						|
the response team so the response team can validate subscription requests.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Each subscriber needs to send a subscription request to the response team
 | 
						|
by email. The email must be signed with the subscriber's PGP key or S/MIME
 | 
						|
certificate. If a PGP key is used, it must be available from a public key
 | 
						|
server and is ideally connected to the Linux kernel's PGP web of trust. See
 | 
						|
also: https://www.kernel.org/signature.html.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The response team verifies that the subscriber request is valid and adds
 | 
						|
the subscriber to the list. After subscription the subscriber will receive
 | 
						|
email from the mailing-list which is signed either with the list's PGP key
 | 
						|
or the list's S/MIME certificate. The subscriber's email client can extract
 | 
						|
the PGP key or the S/MIME certificate from the signature so the subscriber
 | 
						|
can send encrypted email to the list.
 | 
						|
 |