Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 11:06:49 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <>
Cc: Alexander Popov <>, Linus Torvalds
 <>, Jonathan Corbet <>, Paul
 McKenney <>, Andrew Morton <>,
 Thomas Gleixner <>, Peter Zijlstra
 <>, Joerg Roedel <>, Maciej Rozycki
 <>, Muchun Song <>, Viresh Kumar
 <>, Robin Murphy <>, Randy
 Dunlap <>, Lu Baolu <>, Petr
 Mladek <>, 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 <>, Will Deacon <>, Ard
 Biesheuvel <>, Laura Abbott <>, David S
 Miller <>, Borislav Petkov <>, Arnd Bergmann
 <>, Andrew Scull <>, Marc Zyngier
 <>, Jessica Yu <>, Iurii Zaikin
 <>, Rasmus Villemoes <>, Wang
 Qing <>, Mel Gorman <>, Mauro Carvalho
 Chehab <>, Andrew Klychkov
 <>, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer
 <>, Daniel Borkmann <>, Stephen Kitt
 <>, Stephen Boyd <>, Thomas Bogendoerfer
 <>, Mike Rapoport <>, Bjorn
 Andersson <>, Kernel Hardening
 "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <>, linux-arch
 <>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <>, linux-fsdevel
 <>,,,,, Shuah Khan
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Introduce the pkill_on_warn parameter

On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 14:59:57 +0100
Lukas Bulwahn <> wrote:

> 1. Allow a reasonably configured kernel to boot and run with
> panic_on_warn set. Warnings should only be raised when something is
> not configured as the developers expect it or the kernel is put into a
> state that generally is _unexpected_ and has been exposed little to
> the critical thought of the developer, to testing efforts and use in
> other systems in the wild. Warnings should not be used for something
> informative, which still allows the kernel to continue running in a
> proper way in a generally expected environment. Up to my knowledge,
> there are some kernels in production that run with panic_on_warn; so,
> IMHO, this requirement is generally accepted (we might of course

To me, WARN*() is the same as BUG*(). If it gets hit, it's a bug in the
kernel and needs to be fixed. I have several WARN*() calls in my code, and
it's all because the algorithms used is expected to prevent the condition
in the warning from happening. If the warning triggers, it means either that
the algorithm is wrong or my assumption about the algorithm is wrong. In
either case, the kernel needs to be updated. All my tests fail if a WARN*()
gets hit (anywhere in the kernel, not just my own).

After reading all the replies and thinking about this more, I find the
pkill_on_warning actually worse than not doing anything. If you are
concerned about exploits from warnings, the only real solution is a
panic_on_warning. Yes, it brings down the system, but really, it has to be
brought down anyway, because it is in need of a kernel update.

-- Steve

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.