From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5DB24634F for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 13:06:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760015210; cv=none; b=hlPZzsegoTGFIwpmbmNtibf5BoBnXNQ0eI4m/QC6aYGvW2zWhGs9N3XCOSrZeflIVB0H2vPY2fDezRpEndjEis4kMCxBtP8HpnAOdL3mptpgexW5DD4szLxhnI4KTEqQe9hsjitI70BpvLLosRZkDXEnOLvTsEIiDUKsBAaTyC0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760015210; c=relaxed/simple; bh=QbiOn5PNVqryULKQ8Izd2G5OdE12jQBX9xhimo9b4eM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ae0v1/14T2aQPsPnaNEhRYT7bAhZY++uFavY0Jw2ER69/+PJHA1OUbWhxNrX7Ab9WGI00wcoHwtxzGkv3PfeD7h3WwZBmcl2Pv54kRMc9quKifSrGPWpVIj3y21phktIuD60Yfb420xQY62ubfF5qW5n1yL4tChyldn3h3b2ciY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=f9r8MmjK; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="f9r8MmjK" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A246EC4CEE7; Thu, 9 Oct 2025 13:06:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1760015210; bh=QbiOn5PNVqryULKQ8Izd2G5OdE12jQBX9xhimo9b4eM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=f9r8MmjKFRgRakf9Pw8KB93CpcpdCUM4K+1kpYSZ7VSkMCqs4tIpTN/oWF2/f6nPw km4c2kJE7FEHQvjFz6ZcPn/rd7XSi/0nVhLCQxApxAgfVmVCEsSfn7hJVvIKCrSJkr 0FCnkzN0DWha7Of6PJ7NxaskBnBFZ+cHEY47BGkc= Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 15:06:42 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Gustavo Padovan Cc: Arisu Tachibana , kernelci Subject: Re: CRA compliance Message-ID: <2025100944-spinning-clicker-4c03@gregkh> References: <2025100911-unloaded-showbiz-4639@gregkh> <199c90706a2.3a0ccb76917070.5373277751432418292@collabora.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kernelci@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <199c90706a2.3a0ccb76917070.5373277751432418292@collabora.com> On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 09:51:44AM -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > Hi Greg, > > ---- On Thu, 09 Oct 2025 07:48:45 -0300 Greg KH wrote --- > > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2025 at 07:43:08PM +0900, Arisu Tachibana wrote: > > > Hello everyone, > > > > > > as per the discussion of last week, > > > for moving on with the CRA compliance topic. > > > I propose to create a private mailing-list called > > > security@kernelci.org or security-kernelci@lists.linux.dev > > > > > > any objection ? or suggestion? > > > > Why is this needed? Kernel.ci isn't going to be a "steward" of anything > > used in a commercial offering, is it? If not, what would it be for? > > Indeed. Although KernelCI offer free testing services to the community, we are not offering any > products or commercial engagements. So we don't need CRA per se. However, on a related front > we are working with LF Legal to protect the testing services surfaces as stuff that KernelCI creates > gets to run in internal networks across the industry. That's great, but that has nothing to do with the CRA :) > Then for security breaches in KernelCI, it would be a best practice to create kernelci-security@ > mailing list for people to report issues and for us to community privately with parties running > KernelCI infra too. "communicate privately" == "private communication channels" which opens up a TON of legal issues, as I am want to talk at length with :) Be VERY VERY VERY careful with this, there's a whole boatload of problems that you can get into when doing this as you are taking a public project's communications private to specific companies/entities. Anyway, having a security@ address is great to REPORT bugs to, but please refrain from using that to attempt to coordinate security fix rollouts. That way lies a death by a thousand paper cuts and potentially talking to government entities when you least expect it. I can go into much more detail if people really want. thanks, greg k-h