Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 22:48:20 +0100 From: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> To: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>, Seth Jenkins <sethjenkins@...gle.com>, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: Put an upper limit on how often we can oops On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:15 PM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:13:17PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote: > > +oops_limit > > +========== > > + > > +Number of kernel oopses after which the kernel should panic when > > +``panic_on_oops`` is not set. > > Rather than introduce this separate oops_limit, how about making > panic_on_oops (and maybe all panic_on_*) take the limit value(s) instead > of being Boolean? I think this would preserve the current behavior at > panic_on_oops = 0 and panic_on_oops = 1, but would introduce your > desired behavior at panic_on_oops = 10000. We can make 10000 the new > default. If a distro overrides panic_on_oops, it probably sets it to 1 > like RHEL does. > > Are there distros explicitly setting panic_on_oops to 0? If so, that > could be a reason to introduce the separate oops_limit. > > I'm not advocating one way or the other - I just felt this should be > explicitly mentioned and decided on. I think at least internally in the kernel, it probably works better to keep those two concepts separate? For example, sparc has a function die_nmi() that uses panic_on_oops to determine whether the system should panic when a watchdog detects a lockup.
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.