Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 21:27:43 +0300
From: Alexander Popov <>
To: Andrew Morton <>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <>, Paul McKenney <>,
 Thomas Gleixner <>, Peter Zijlstra <>,
 Joerg Roedel <>, Maciej Rozycki <>,
 Muchun Song <>,
 Viresh Kumar <>, Robin Murphy <>,
 Randy Dunlap <>, Lu Baolu <>,
 Petr Mladek <>, Kees Cook <>,
 Luis Chamberlain <>, Wei Liu <>,
 John Ogness <>,
 Andy Shevchenko <>,
 Alexey Kardashevskiy <>,
 Christophe Leroy <>, Jann Horn
 <>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
 Mark Rutland <>, Andy Lutomirski <>,
 Dave Hansen <>,
 Steven Rostedt <>, Will Deacon <>,
 David S Miller <>, Borislav Petkov <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce the pkill_on_warn boot parameter

On 30.09.2021 02:31, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2021 22:01:33 +0300 Alexander Popov <> 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:
>>> 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 <>
>> 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? 

I would say we need both sysctl and boot parameter for pkill_on_warn.
That would be consistent with panic_on_warn, ftrace_dump_on_oops and

> 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?

A kernel warning may occur at any moment.
I don't have a deep understanding of possible side effects on early boot stages.
So I decided that at least it's safer to avoid interfering before SYSTEM_RUNNING.

Best regards,

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.