[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 16:55:37 +0300
From: Alexander Popov <alex.popov@...ux.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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>, 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>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....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 29.09.2021 23:06, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 12:03:36PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 9/29/21 11:58 AM, Alexander Popov wrote:
>>> --- a/kernel/panic.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/panic.c
>>> @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ static int pause_on_oops_flag;
>>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(pause_on_oops_lock);
>>> bool crash_kexec_post_notifiers;
>>> int panic_on_warn __read_mostly;
>>> +int pkill_on_warn __read_mostly;
>
> I like this idea. I can't tell if Linus would tolerate it, though. But I
> really have wanted a middle ground like BUG(). Having only WARN() and
> panic() is not very friendly. :(
Ok, let's see.
Kees, could you also share your thoughts on the good questions by Petr Mladek in
this thread?
>>> unsigned long panic_on_taint;
>>> bool panic_on_taint_nousertaint = false;
>>>
>>> @@ -610,6 +611,9 @@ void __warn(const char *file, int line, void *caller, unsigned taint,
>>>
>>> print_oops_end_marker();
>>>
>>> + if (pkill_on_warn && system_state >= SYSTEM_RUNNING)
>>> + do_group_exit(SIGKILL);
>>> +
>>> /* Just a warning, don't kill lockdep. */
>>> add_taint(taint, LOCKDEP_STILL_OK);
>>> }
>>
>> Doesn't this tie into the warning *printing* code? That's better than
>> nothing, for sure. But, if we're doing this for hardening, I think we
>> would want to kill anyone provoking a warning, not just the first one
>> that triggered *printing* the warning.
>
> Right, this needs to be moved into the callers of __warn() (i.e.
> report_bug(), and warn_slowpath_fmt()), likely with some small
> refactoring in report_bug().
Yes, I see now. Thanks, Dave, Peter and Kees.
The kernel can hit warning and omit calling __warn() that prints the message.
But pkill_on_warn action should be taken each time.
As I can understand now, include/asm-generic/bug.h defines three warning
implementations:
1. CONFIG_BUG=y and the arch provides __WARN_FLAGS. In that case pkill_on_warn
should be checked in report_bug() that you mention.
2. CONFIG_BUG=y and the arch doesn't have __WARN_FLAGS. In that case
pkill_on_warn should be checked in warn_slowpath_fmt().
3. CONFIG_BUG is not set. In that case pkill_on_warn should not be considered.
Please, correct me if needed.
Best regards,
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.
