[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221107211440.GA4233@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 22:14:40 +0100
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
Seth Jenkins <sethjenkins@...gle.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: Put an upper limit on how often we can oops
On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:13:17PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> +oops_limit
> +==========
> +
> +Number of kernel oopses after which the kernel should panic when
> +``panic_on_oops`` is not set.
Rather than introduce this separate oops_limit, how about making
panic_on_oops (and maybe all panic_on_*) take the limit value(s) instead
of being Boolean? I think this would preserve the current behavior at
panic_on_oops = 0 and panic_on_oops = 1, but would introduce your
desired behavior at panic_on_oops = 10000. We can make 10000 the new
default. If a distro overrides panic_on_oops, it probably sets it to 1
like RHEL does.
Are there distros explicitly setting panic_on_oops to 0? If so, that
could be a reason to introduce the separate oops_limit.
I'm not advocating one way or the other - I just felt this should be
explicitly mentioned and decided on.
Alexander
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.
