Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210929194735.GB4323@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 21:47:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>, Maciej Rozycki <macro@...am.me.uk>,
	Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
	Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>, Wei Liu <wl@....org>,
	John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
	Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@...abs.ru>,
	Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
	Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
	David S Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, notify@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce the pkill_on_warn boot parameter

On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:03:36PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 9/29/21 11:58 AM, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/panic.c
> > +++ b/kernel/panic.c
> > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static int pause_on_oops_flag;
> >  static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pause_on_oops_lock);
> >  bool crash_kexec_post_notifiers;
> >  int panic_on_warn __read_mostly;
> > +int pkill_on_warn __read_mostly;
> >  unsigned long panic_on_taint;
> >  bool panic_on_taint_nousertaint = false;
> >  
> > @@ -610,6 +611,9 @@ void __warn(const char *file, int line, void *caller, unsigned taint,
> >  
> >  	print_oops_end_marker();
> >  
> > +	if (pkill_on_warn && system_state >= SYSTEM_RUNNING)
> > +		do_group_exit(SIGKILL);
> > +
> >  	/* Just a warning, don't kill lockdep. */
> >  	add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
> >  }
> 
> Doesn't this tie into the warning *printing* code?  That's better than
> nothing, for sure.  But, if we're doing this for hardening, I think we
> would want to kill anyone provoking a warning, not just the first one
> that triggered *printing* the warning.

Right, that would be lib/bug.c:report_bug(), for most archs I suppose.

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.