linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/7] genalloc: selftest

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:   Mon, 26 Feb 2018 20:00:26 +0200
From:   Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@...wei.com>
To:     J Freyensee <why2jjj.linux@...il.com>, <david@...morbit.com>,
        <willy@...radead.org>, <keescook@...omium.org>, <mhocko@...nel.org>
CC:     <labbott@...hat.com>, <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] genalloc: selftest



On 26/02/18 19:46, J Freyensee wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/26/18 4:11 AM, Igor Stoppa wrote:
>>
>> On 24/02/18 00:42, J Freyensee wrote:
>>>> +	locations[action->location] = gen_pool_alloc(pool, action->size);
>>>> +	BUG_ON(!locations[action->location]);
>>> Again, I'd think it through if you really want to use BUG_ON() or not:
>>>
>>> https://lwn.net/Articles/13183/
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/4/1
>> Is it acceptable to display only a WARNing, in case of risking damaging
>> a mounted filesystem?
> 
> That's a good question.  Based upon those articles, 'yes'.  But it seems 
> like a 'darned-if-you-do, darned-if-you-don't' question as couldn't you 
> also corrupt a mounted filesystem by crashing the kernel, yes/no?

The idea is to do it very early in the boot phase, before early init,
when the kernel has not gotten even close to any storage device.

> If you really want a system crash, maybe just do a panic() like 
> filesystems also use?

ok, if that's a more acceptable way to halt the kernel, I do not mind.

--
igor