Re: Request for linux-distros subscription

[Greg KH <greg () kroah com>]

On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 10:07:34PM -0700, Ramon de C Valle wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Greg KH" <greg () kroah com>
> > To: oss-security () lists openwall com
> > Cc: "Solar Designer" <solar () openwall com>, "VMware Security Response Center" <security () vmware com>, "Monty 
> > Ijzerman"
> > <mijzerman () vmware com>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 1:09:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: [oss-security] Request for linux-distros subscription
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 12:33:13PM -0700, Ramon de C Valle wrote:
> > > Hi Alexander,
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 01:16:47PM -0700, Ramon de C Valle wrote:
> > > > > I can attest that Monty is my colleague and the Manager of VMware
> > > > > Security
> > > > > Response Center. As a former colleague of you (Kurt) and also former
> > > > > linux-distros subscriber, I would like to ask for your consideration
> > > > > for
> > > > > subscribing Monty (or myself) to linux-distros on behalf of VMware.
> > > > > Although ESXi isn't a Linux distribution, it implements
> > > > > Linux-compatible
> > > > > system calls and provides a GNU/Linux -like ecosystem that allows many
> > > > > applications that are compiled on/for Linux operating systems to run
> > > > > seamlessly. This ecosystem includes OSS that should be supported in
> > > > > timely
> > > > > fashion pretty much like like any other Linux distribution on the list.
> > > > > It
> > > > > also implements a Linux kernel module interface and uses many Linux
> > > > > device
> > > > > drivers and kernel modules that also should be supported. In addition,
> > > > > ESXi is the base layer that many of the Linux distributions on the list
> > > > > rely upon and run atop of in many datacenters around the world.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Ramon.  This is pretty good rationale, but I feel that
> > > > getting VMware onto linux-distros for the reasons given above would be a
> > > > (possibly desirable) change in who the list is for.  So far, it's been
> > > > for Linux distros, and I deliberately chose the linux-distros name for
> > > > it.  Now a non-Linux-distro wants to be specifically on linux-distros
> > > > (not just on distros), and be exposed to Linux-specific vulnerability
> > > > details (albeit for good reasons).  I'd appreciate comments by others
> > > > active in this community.
> > > I'm afraid I can't comment on Greg's comments due to my lack of legal
> > > understanding. However, in addition to the reasons explained above and
> > > also Alan's comments (which, IMO, also add to our reasons), I'd also
> > > appreciate comments by others active in this community and would be
> > > happy to answer any questions anyone might have.
> >
> > Ok, let's keep this on a purely community basis, no legal issues
> > involved (to quell the tide of private emails about this as well.)
> >
> > Your company takes the Linux kernel drivers (a large majority of the
> > Linux kernel source tree) and builds a product around it, while refusing
> > to contribute back to those drivers.  What you are doing has been
> > explicitly stated as something you should not be doing by a number of
> > community members.  Somehow you feel that your tiny "core" of a custom
> > kernel is more important than the larger body of community work you are
> > relying on in order for that core to work properly.
> I'd appreciate any references to back the "a large majority of the
> Linux kernel source tree", "while refusing to contribute back to those
> drivers", and "tiny "core" of a custom kernel" statements if you want
> me to make any comments.

You referenced it above in your statement about why you want to be part
of the group.  You write:
        It also implements a Linux kernel module interface and uses many
        Linux device drivers and kernel modules that also should be
        supported.

That Linux kernel driver codebase is huge, and odds are, much larger
than the core kernel you are linking it to (just by the virtue of the
fact that the Linux kernel core is much smaller than the driver portion
of the source tree you are using.)  If I'm wrong in that your kernel is
much larger than the drivers being used here, well, you all are doing
something wrong :)

> > Because of this reliance on that large body of code, you are now asking
> > to be notified ahead of time about vulnerabilities in that code base by
> > the same community members you are ignoring in the first place.
> Same for "Because of this reliance on that large body of code".
>
> > Does that seem like a fair thing to be asking for?
> >
> > To me it does not, but feel free to persuade me otherwise.
> My intention isn't to persuade anyone.

Well, as that is what you are supposed to be doing in order to get
admission, it seems odd that you don't intend to do this.

> If everyone thinks that we shouldn't be subscribed to linux-distros,
> that's fine. I just would like a fair reasoning of why not, instead of
> biased and emotionally-filled comments.

Taking emotions out of humans and decisions causes other major problems,
don't try to do that.  On the linux-distro list, you will have to be
interacting with (well, supposed to be) the humans of those open source
projects in order to address the issues found on the list.  Those
community members are actual people with emotions and histories of
dealing with companies in various manners.  If you somehow think that
they will not react in ways that they feel are in the best interest of
their project's long-term interests, well, then you are forgetting how
open source communities work.

thanks,

greg k-h