linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] introduce panic

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]

Message-ID: <p73d4z520v6.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
Date:	06 Jul 2007 14:05:49 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] introduce panic_gently

Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de> writes:

> If the boot process failes to find init or the root fs, the cause has 
> usually scrolled off the screen, and because of the panic, it can't be 
> reached anymore.
> 
> This patch introduces panic_gently, which will allow to use the scrollback 
> buffer and to reboot, but it can't be called from unsafe context.

The implementation certainly has too much duplicated code. If anything
it needs some common functions.

The problem with keeping interrupts on is that the system might continue
to route packets. This is sometimes quite unexpected for users.

Arguably that's unlikely to be already enabled for missing root,
but in theory initrd could have done it.

I think i would prefer if the normal panic() tried to detect the situations
where this is 

It couldn't detect spinlocks, but interrupts off/interrupt context etc.

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/