embargoed-hardware-issues.rst 15 KB

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358
  1. .. _embargoed_hardware_issues:
  2. Embargoed hardware issues
  3. =========================
  4. Scope
  5. -----
  6. Hardware issues which result in security problems are a different category
  7. of security bugs than pure software bugs which only affect the Linux
  8. kernel.
  9. Hardware issues like Meltdown, Spectre, L1TF etc. must be treated
  10. differently because they usually affect all Operating Systems ("OS") and
  11. therefore need coordination across different OS vendors, distributions,
  12. silicon vendors, hardware integrators, and other parties. For some of the
  13. issues, software mitigations can depend on microcode or firmware updates,
  14. which need further coordination.
  15. .. _Contact:
  16. Contact
  17. -------
  18. The Linux kernel hardware security team is separate from the regular Linux
  19. kernel security team.
  20. The team only handles developing fixes for embargoed hardware security
  21. issues. Reports of pure software security bugs in the Linux kernel are not
  22. handled by this team and the reporter will be guided to contact the regular
  23. Linux kernel security team (:ref:`Documentation/admin-guide/
  24. <securitybugs>`) instead.
  25. The team can be contacted by email at <hardware-security@kernel.org>. This
  26. is a private list of security officers who will help you coordinate a fix
  27. according to our documented process.
  28. The list is encrypted and email to the list can be sent by either PGP or
  29. S/MIME encrypted and must be signed with the reporter's PGP key or S/MIME
  30. certificate. The list's PGP key and S/MIME certificate are available from
  31. the following URLs:
  32. - PGP: https://www.kernel.org/static/files/hardware-security.asc
  33. - S/MIME: https://www.kernel.org/static/files/hardware-security.crt
  34. While hardware security issues are often handled by the affected silicon
  35. vendor, we welcome contact from researchers or individuals who have
  36. identified a potential hardware flaw.
  37. Hardware security officers
  38. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  39. The current team of hardware security officers:
  40. - Linus Torvalds (Linux Foundation Fellow)
  41. - Greg Kroah-Hartman (Linux Foundation Fellow)
  42. - Thomas Gleixner (Linux Foundation Fellow)
  43. Operation of mailing-lists
  44. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  45. The encrypted mailing-lists which are used in our process are hosted on
  46. Linux Foundation's IT infrastructure. By providing this service, members
  47. of Linux Foundation's IT operations personnel technically have the
  48. ability to access the embargoed information, but are obliged to
  49. confidentiality by their employment contract. Linux Foundation IT
  50. personnel are also responsible for operating and managing the rest of
  51. kernel.org's infrastructure.
  52. The Linux Foundation's current director of IT Project infrastructure is
  53. Konstantin Ryabitsev.
  54. Non-disclosure agreements
  55. -------------------------
  56. The Linux kernel hardware security team is not a formal body and therefore
  57. unable to enter into any non-disclosure agreements. The kernel community
  58. is aware of the sensitive nature of such issues and offers a Memorandum of
  59. Understanding instead.
  60. Memorandum of Understanding
  61. ---------------------------
  62. The Linux kernel community has a deep understanding of the requirement to
  63. keep hardware security issues under embargo for coordination between
  64. different OS vendors, distributors, silicon vendors, and other parties.
  65. The Linux kernel community has successfully handled hardware security
  66. issues in the past and has the necessary mechanisms in place to allow
  67. community compliant development under embargo restrictions.
  68. The Linux kernel community has a dedicated hardware security team for
  69. initial contact, which oversees the process of handling such issues under
  70. embargo rules.
  71. The hardware security team identifies the developers (domain experts) who
  72. will form the initial response team for a particular issue. The initial
  73. response team can bring in further developers (domain experts) to address
  74. the issue in the best technical way.
  75. All involved developers pledge to adhere to the embargo rules and to keep
  76. the received information confidential. Violation of the pledge will lead to
  77. immediate exclusion from the current issue and removal from all related
  78. mailing lists. In addition, the hardware security team will also exclude
  79. the offender from future issues. The impact of this consequence is a highly
  80. effective deterrent in our community. In case a violation happens the
  81. hardware security team will inform the involved parties immediately. If you
  82. or anyone else becomes aware of a potential violation, please report it
  83. immediately to the Hardware security officers.
  84. Process
  85. ^^^^^^^
  86. Due to the globally distributed nature of Linux kernel development,
  87. face-to-face meetings are almost impossible to address hardware security
  88. issues. Phone conferences are hard to coordinate due to time zones and
  89. other factors and should be only used when absolutely necessary. Encrypted
  90. email has been proven to be the most effective and secure communication
  91. method for these types of issues.
  92. Start of Disclosure
  93. """""""""""""""""""
  94. Disclosure starts by emailing the Linux kernel hardware security team per
  95. the Contact section above. This initial contact should contain a
  96. description of the problem and a list of any known affected silicon. If
  97. your organization builds or distributes the affected hardware, we encourage
  98. you to also consider what other hardware could be affected. The disclosing
  99. party is responsible for contacting the affected silicon vendors in a
  100. timely manner.
  101. The hardware security team will provide an incident-specific encrypted
  102. mailing list which will be used for initial discussion with the reporter,
  103. further disclosure, and coordination of fixes.
  104. The hardware security team will provide the disclosing party a list of
  105. developers (domain experts) who should be informed initially about the
  106. issue after confirming with the developers that they will adhere to this
  107. Memorandum of Understanding and the documented process. These developers
  108. form the initial response team and will be responsible for handling the
  109. issue after initial contact. The hardware security team is supporting the
  110. response team, but is not necessarily involved in the mitigation
  111. development process.
  112. While individual developers might be covered by a non-disclosure agreement
  113. via their employer, they cannot enter individual non-disclosure agreements
  114. in their role as Linux kernel developers. They will, however, agree to
  115. adhere to this documented process and the Memorandum of Understanding.
  116. The disclosing party should provide a list of contacts for all other
  117. entities who have already been, or should be, informed about the issue.
  118. This serves several purposes:
  119. - The list of disclosed entities allows communication across the
  120. industry, e.g. other OS vendors, HW vendors, etc.
  121. - The disclosed entities can be contacted to name experts who should
  122. participate in the mitigation development.
  123. - If an expert who is required to handle an issue is employed by a listed
  124. entity or member of an listed entity, then the response teams can
  125. request the disclosure of that expert from that entity. This ensures
  126. that the expert is also part of the entity's response team.
  127. Disclosure
  128. """"""""""
  129. The disclosing party provides detailed information to the initial response
  130. team via the specific encrypted mailing-list.
  131. From our experience, the technical documentation of these issues is usually
  132. a sufficient starting point, and further technical clarification is best
  133. done via email.
  134. Mitigation development
  135. """"""""""""""""""""""
  136. The initial response team sets up an encrypted mailing-list or repurposes
  137. an existing one if appropriate.
  138. Using a mailing list is close to the normal Linux development process and
  139. has been successfully used to develop mitigations for various hardware
  140. security issues in the past.
  141. The mailing list operates in the same way as normal Linux development.
  142. Patches are posted, discussed, and reviewed and if agreed upon, applied to
  143. a non-public git repository which is only accessible to the participating
  144. developers via a secure connection. The repository contains the main
  145. development branch against the mainline kernel and backport branches for
  146. stable kernel versions as necessary.
  147. The initial response team will identify further experts from the Linux
  148. kernel developer community as needed. Any involved party can suggest
  149. further experts to be included, each of which will be subject to the same
  150. requirements outlined above.
  151. Bringing in experts can happen at any time in the development process and
  152. needs to be handled in a timely manner.
  153. If an expert is employed by or a member of an entity on the disclosure list
  154. provided by the disclosing party, then participation will be requested from
  155. the relevant entity.
  156. If not, then the disclosing party will be informed about the experts'
  157. participation. The experts are covered by the Memorandum of Understanding
  158. and the disclosing party is requested to acknowledge their participation.
  159. In the case where the disclosing party has a compelling reason to object,
  160. any objection must to be raised within five working days and resolved with
  161. the incident team immediately. If the disclosing party does not react
  162. within five working days this is taken as silent acknowledgment.
  163. After the incident team acknowledges or resolves an objection, the expert
  164. is disclosed and brought into the development process.
  165. List participants may not communicate about the issue outside of the
  166. private mailing list. List participants may not use any shared resources
  167. (e.g. employer build farms, CI systems, etc) when working on patches.
  168. Early access
  169. """"""""""""
  170. The patches discussed and developed on the list can neither be distributed
  171. to any individual who is not a member of the response team nor to any other
  172. organization.
  173. To allow the affected silicon vendors to work with their internal teams and
  174. industry partners on testing, validation, and logistics, the following
  175. exception is provided:
  176. Designated representatives of the affected silicon vendors are
  177. allowed to hand over the patches at any time to the silicon
  178. vendor’s response team. The representative must notify the kernel
  179. response team about the handover. The affected silicon vendor must
  180. have and maintain their own documented security process for any
  181. patches shared with their response team that is consistent with
  182. this policy.
  183. The silicon vendor’s response team can distribute these patches to
  184. their industry partners and to their internal teams under the
  185. silicon vendor’s documented security process. Feedback from the
  186. industry partners goes back to the silicon vendor and is
  187. communicated by the silicon vendor to the kernel response team.
  188. The handover to the silicon vendor’s response team removes any
  189. responsibility or liability from the kernel response team regarding
  190. premature disclosure, which happens due to the involvement of the
  191. silicon vendor’s internal teams or industry partners. The silicon
  192. vendor guarantees this release of liability by agreeing to this
  193. process.
  194. Coordinated release
  195. """""""""""""""""""
  196. The involved parties will negotiate the date and time when the embargo
  197. ends. At that point, the prepared mitigations are published into the
  198. relevant kernel trees. There is no pre-notification process: the
  199. mitigations are published in public and available to everyone at the same
  200. time.
  201. While we understand that hardware security issues need coordinated embargo
  202. time, the embargo time should be constrained to the minimum time that is
  203. required for all involved parties to develop, test, and prepare their
  204. mitigations. Extending embargo time artificially to meet conference talk
  205. dates or other non-technical reasons creates more work and burden for the
  206. involved developers and response teams as the patches need to be kept up to
  207. date in order to follow the ongoing upstream kernel development, which
  208. might create conflicting changes.
  209. CVE assignment
  210. """"""""""""""
  211. Neither the hardware security team nor the initial response team assign
  212. CVEs, nor are CVEs required for the development process. If CVEs are
  213. provided by the disclosing party they can be used for documentation
  214. purposes.
  215. Process ambassadors
  216. -------------------
  217. For assistance with this process we have established ambassadors in various
  218. organizations, who can answer questions about or provide guidance on the
  219. reporting process and further handling. Ambassadors are not involved in the
  220. disclosure of a particular issue, unless requested by a response team or by
  221. an involved disclosed party. The current ambassadors list:
  222. ============= ========================================================
  223. AMD Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
  224. Ampere Darren Hart <darren@os.amperecomputing.com>
  225. ARM Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
  226. IBM Power Michael Ellerman <ellerman@au.ibm.com>
  227. IBM Z Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
  228. Intel Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
  229. Qualcomm Trilok Soni <quic_tsoni@quicinc.com>
  230. RISC-V Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>
  231. Samsung Javier González <javier.gonz@samsung.com>
  232. Microsoft James Morris <jamorris@linux.microsoft.com>
  233. Xen Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
  234. Canonical John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>
  235. Debian Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
  236. Oracle Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
  237. Red Hat Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
  238. SUSE Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
  239. Google Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
  240. LLVM Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@google.com>
  241. ============= ========================================================
  242. If you want your organization to be added to the ambassadors list, please
  243. contact the hardware security team. The nominated ambassador has to
  244. understand and support our process fully and is ideally well-connected in
  245. the Linux kernel community.
  246. Encrypted mailing-lists
  247. -----------------------
  248. We use encrypted mailing lists for communication. The operating principle
  249. of these lists is that email sent to the list is encrypted either with the
  250. list's PGP key or with the list's S/MIME certificate. The mailing list
  251. software decrypts the email and re-encrypts it individually for each
  252. subscriber with the subscriber's PGP key or S/MIME certificate. Details
  253. about the mailing list software and the setup that is used to ensure the
  254. security of the lists and protection of the data can be found here:
  255. https://korg.wiki.kernel.org/userdoc/remail.
  256. List keys
  257. ^^^^^^^^^
  258. For initial contact see the :ref:`Contact` section above. For incident
  259. specific mailing lists, the key and S/MIME certificate are conveyed to the
  260. subscribers by email sent from the specific list.
  261. Subscription to incident-specific lists
  262. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  263. Subscription to incident-specific lists is handled by the response teams.
  264. Disclosed parties who want to participate in the communication send a list
  265. of potential experts to the response team so the response team can validate
  266. subscription requests.
  267. Each subscriber needs to send a subscription request to the response team
  268. by email. The email must be signed with the subscriber's PGP key or S/MIME
  269. certificate. If a PGP key is used, it must be available from a public key
  270. server and is ideally connected to the Linux kernel's PGP web of trust. See
  271. also: https://www.kernel.org/signature.html.
  272. The response team verifies that the subscriber request is valid and adds
  273. the subscriber to the list. After subscription the subscriber will receive
  274. email from the mailing-list which is signed either with the list's PGP key
  275. or the list's S/MIME certificate. The subscriber's email client can extract
  276. the PGP key or the S/MIME certificate from the signature so the subscriber
  277. can send encrypted email to the list.