3 ms·

>The failures of the Linux core team to properly prioritize security Why even post this, when it has nothing to do the with the case GP & OP described? It's mi

by dexen 7y ago

>The failures of the Linux core team to properly prioritize security Why even post this, when it has nothing to do the with the case GP & OP described? It's misleading at best. The failure here is in the way Google has set its Android development process. They keep a separate "stable" kernel, and manually select certain patches to backport to. In process they skip all kinds of patches - performance, features, and yes, security ones. Given that only selected patches are backported, the process is best described as insecure by default. It was Google's decision to favor stable API over security here. This is compounded by the fact other Android phone vendors are pretty slow at releasing OS upgrade - and tend to stop releasing them altogether shortly after the phone's no longer manufactured. The mainline kernel, as released by the Linux core team is up to date with security. Hold to account people that decided to skip patches as a matter of course, resulting in the insecure by default process.

viraptor 7y ago
> The failure here is in the way Google has set its Android development process. I think it's still the won't layer. Google may be able to put some pressure to change things, but it's describe the issue as "the failure is in the way SOC manufacturers have set their kernel porting process". You often get chips which work with one version and a dump of specific drivers. Beyond pressuring the company to upstream their changes, or writing clean room versions, I don't see many solutions.
typical182 7y ago
> The mainline kernel, as released by the Linux core team is up to date with security. Hold to account people that decided to skip patches as a matter of course To me, the particulars of this exact case are not as interesting as the fact that the entire Linux patching and backporting of security issues seems _very_ fragile, with things frequently getting "lost" for mundane reasons, and a key part of the "why" it is so fragile is due to many of the core Linux development processes. This particular CVE is apparently one small example that happened to catch some headlines out of _thousands_ of similar problems. That talk linked above by Dmitry Vyukov is worthwhile for getting a sense of the magnitude of the problem.
sukahiroaki 7y ago
I think there is a lot to be said about the shortcomings of the Android world in how Linux Kernel updates are trickling down the whole foodchain (or rather: are not). BUT: This particular episode is a very bad choice for your argument. Cause in this case the bugfix in question was never ported back to any regular Linux LTS version, while it actually was cherrypicked for the Android Common Kernel (branches 3.18, 4.4 and 4.9). Now why that fix never made it in most vendor kernels (besides a few like the one in the Pixel 3 that is based on 4.9) is a good question. But at the same time there is the reality, that everyone focusing on the upstream LTS kernel would have never gotten the fix.

by dexen 7y ago

viraptor 7y ago

> The failure here is in the way Google has set its Android development process. I think it's still the won't layer. Google may be able to put some pressure to change things, but it's describe the issue as "the failure is in the way SOC manufacturers have set their kernel porting process". You often get chips which work with one version and a dump of specific drivers. Beyond pressuring the company to upstream their changes, or writing clean room versions, I don't see many solutions.

typical182 7y ago

> The mainline kernel, as released by the Linux core team is up to date with security. Hold to account people that decided to skip patches as a matter of course To me, the particulars of this exact case are not as interesting as the fact that the entire Linux patching and backporting of security issues seems _very_ fragile, with things frequently getting "lost" for mundane reasons, and a key part of the "why" it is so fragile is due to many of the core Linux development processes. This particular CVE is apparently one small example that happened to catch some headlines out of _thousands_ of similar problems. That talk linked above by Dmitry Vyukov is worthwhile for getting a sense of the magnitude of the problem.

sukahiroaki 7y ago

I think there is a lot to be said about the shortcomings of the Android world in how Linux Kernel updates are trickling down the whole foodchain (or rather: are not). BUT: This particular episode is a very bad choice for your argument. Cause in this case the bugfix in question was never ported back to any regular Linux LTS version, while it actually was cherrypicked for the Android Common Kernel (branches 3.18, 4.4 and 4.9). Now why that fix never made it in most vendor kernels (besides a few like the one in the Pixel 3 that is based on 4.9) is a good question. But at the same time there is the reality, that everyone focusing on the upstream LTS kernel would have never gotten the fix.