linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sched/core: add taint on "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 29 Jul 2016 15:01:42 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
cc:	Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sched/core: add taint on "BUG: sleeping function called
 from invalid context"

On Fri, 29 Jul 2016, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com> writes:
> > Seeing this, it occurs to me that we should probably add a taint here:
> 
> Taint has traditionally meant "the user did something unsupported, take
> the bug report with a grain of salt".  Such as force removing a module.

We have changed the meaning of taint quite some time ago. It also denotes
e.g. that there was a bug, warning etc. So it's not necessarily 'user did
something wrong'.

It's very helpful to see that there was already a warnon/bug before the
backtrace you get from the reporter.

Thanks,

	tglx