Re: [oe] [RFC] Mark of upstream CVE patches

[Benjamin Esquivel <benjamin.esquivel@linux.intel.com>]

On Mon, 2016-01-04 at 12:25 -0600, Mariano Lopez wrote:
> 
> On 12/16/2015 03:21 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > 
> > On 16 December 2015 at 09:03, Sona Sarmadi <sona.sarmadi@enea.com 
> > <mailto:sona.sarmadi@enea.com>> wrote:
> > 
> >     We are supposed to have reference to the CVE identifier both in
> >     the patch file/s
> >      and the commit message(e.g.  xxx- CVE-2013-6435.pacth)
> > according
> >     to the guidelines
> >     for "Patch name convention and commit message" in the Yocto
> >     Wiki https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Security.
> > 
> >     If a patch address multiple CVEs, perhaps we should name the
> > patch:
> >     Fix-for-multiple-CVEs.patch and list all CVEs in the patch
> > file.
> > 
> >     Will this not solve the problem? Do you think there is still
> > need
> >     for a new tag "CVE"?
> > 
> > 
> > I'd say a new tag is essential if we want to automate tooling, to 
> > reduce the chance of false-positives from simply searching the
> > patch 
> > for something that looks like a CVE reference.
> > 
> > Ross
> 
> The conclusion of this thread is to add the tag "CVE" to the metadata
> of 
> submitted CVE patches. I will edit the wiki to show this requirement.

Please let us know when the wiki has the changes reflected :)
 
> 
> Mariano