Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:52:49 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <>
To: Alexander Popov <>
Cc: Petr Mladek <>, "Paul E. McKenney" <>, 
	Jonathan Corbet <>, Andrew Morton <>, 
	Thomas Gleixner <>, Peter Zijlstra <>, 
	Joerg Roedel <>, Maciej Rozycki <>, 
	Muchun Song <>, Viresh Kumar <>, 
	Robin Murphy <>, Randy Dunlap <>, 
	Lu Baolu <>, 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 <>, 
	Kernel Hardening <>,, 
	"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <>, 
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce the pkill_on_warn boot parameter

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 4:41 AM Alexander Popov <> wrote:
> And what do you think about the proposed pkill_on_warn?

Honestly, I don't see the point.

If you can reliably trigger the WARN_ON some way, you can probably
cause more problems by fooling some other process to trigger it.

And if it's unintentional, then what does the signal help?

So rather than a "rationale" that makes little sense, I'd like to hear
of an actual _use_ case. That's different. That's somebody actually
_using_ that pkill to good effect for some particular load.

That said, I don't much care in the end. But it sounds like a
pointless option to just introduce yet another behavior to something
that should never happen anyway, and where the actual
honest-to-goodness reason for WARN_ON() existing is already being
fulfilled (ie syzbot has been very effective at flushing things like
that out).


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.