linux-kernel - Re: The policy on initramfs decompression failure

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:55:27 +0100
From:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alain Knaff <alain@...ff.lu>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: The policy on initramfs decompression failure

H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:

> Thought about this whole thing some more, and it seems to me as follows:
> what we really want, and need, is a "panic-level=X" option, where X will
> naturally vary for differnet users.  I suspect there are many users
> today who would prefer a panic (and reboot) on a KERN_CRIT message, even
> at runtime.  For finer control, we need a message subsystem tag, but
> that is something that would be highly desirable anyway.

This will be fun if there are read errors on the CDROM.

> As such, the initramfs decompression failure should be a KERN_CRIT or
> KERN_ALERT message, and not a panic per se.

Only if you can argue that not using the initrd WILL NEVER be bad.

--
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/