[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKko2NkhiFcm4hrhhnbkPPXjFRs51Bym0mGveO1+AHybg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:55:00 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] notifiers: Use CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() on checks
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Arjan van de Ven
<arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/2017 12:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>>
>>> When performing notifier function pointer sanity checking, allow
>>> CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION to upgrade from a WARN to a BUG.
>>> Additionally enables CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS when selecting
>>> CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION.
>
>
>> Any feedback on this change? By default, this retains the existing
>> WARN behavior...
>
>
> if you're upgrading, is the end point really a panic() ?
> e.g. do you assume people to also set panic-on-oops?
That's one option, yes. With the BUG, the process associated is killed
(which is the first level of defense upgrade), and if a system is also
set to panic-on-oops, the entire system will panic (and usually such
systems also retain their crash consoles in some fashion for later
analysis, etc).
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
