|
Message-ID: <202109291229.C64A1D9D@keescook> Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 13:06:59 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.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>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 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>, 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; I like this idea. I can't tell if Linus would tolerate it, though. But I really have wanted a middle ground like BUG(). Having only WARN() and panic() is not very friendly. :( > > 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, this needs to be moved into the callers of __warn() (i.e. report_bug(), and warn_slowpath_fmt()), likely with some small refactoring in report_bug(). -- Kees Cook
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.