[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210929163143.aa8b70ac9d5cf0b628823370@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 16:31:43 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: alex.popov@...ux.com
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.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>, 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, 29 Sep 2021 22:01:33 +0300 Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com> wrote:
> On 29.09.2021 21:58, Alexander Popov wrote:
> > Currently, the Linux kernel provides two types of reaction to kernel
> > warnings:
> > 1. Do nothing (by default),
> > 2. Call panic() if panic_on_warn is set. That's a very strong reaction,
> > so panic_on_warn is usually disabled on production systems.
> >
> > From a safety point of view, the Linux kernel misses a middle way of
> > handling kernel warnings:
> > - The kernel should stop the activity that provokes a warning,
> > - But the kernel should avoid complete denial of service.
> >
> > From a security point of view, kernel warning messages provide a lot of
> > useful information for attackers. Many GNU/Linux distributions allow
> > unprivileged users to read the kernel log, so attackers use kernel
> > warning infoleak in vulnerability exploits. See the examples:
> > https://a13xp0p0v.github.io/2020/02/15/CVE-2019-18683.html
> > https://a13xp0p0v.github.io/2021/02/09/CVE-2021-26708.html
> >
> > Let's introduce the pkill_on_warn boot parameter.
> > If this parameter is set, the kernel kills all threads in a process
> > that provoked a kernel warning. This behavior is reasonable from a safety
> > point of view described above. It is also useful for kernel security
> > hardening because the system kills an exploit process that hits a
> > kernel warning.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
>
> This patch was tested using CONFIG_LKDTM.
> The kernel kills a process that performs this:
> echo WARNING > /sys/kernel/debug/provoke-crash/DIRECT
>
> If you are fine with this approach, I will prepare a patch adding the
> pkill_on_warn sysctl.
Why do we need a boot parameter? Isn't a sysctl all we need for this
feature?
Also,
if (pkill_on_warn && system_state >= SYSTEM_RUNNING)
do_group_exit(SIGKILL);
- why do we care about system_state? An explanatory code comment
seems appropriate.
- do we really want to do this in states > SYSTEM_RUNNING? If so, why?
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.
