Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 12:55:00 -0700 From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> 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 Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com> wrote: > 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? That's one option, yes. With the BUG, the process associated is killed (which is the first level of defense upgrade), and if a system is also set to panic-on-oops, the entire system will panic (and usually such systems also retain their crash consoles in some fashion for later analysis, etc). -Kees -- Kees Cook Pixel Security
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.