[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:32:03 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Rik van Riel
<riel@...hat.com>, "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] notifiers: Use CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION() on checks
On 3/22/2017 12:29 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>> When performing notifier function pointer sanity checking, allow
>> CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION to upgrade from a WARN to a BUG.
>> Additionally enables CONFIG_DEBUG_NOTIFIERS when selecting
>> CONFIG_BUG_ON_DATA_CORRUPTION.
> Any feedback on this change? By default, this retains the existing
> WARN behavior...
if you're upgrading, is the end point really a panic() ?
e.g. do you assume people to also set panic-on-oops?
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.
