linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: Two small fixes for recent syzbot reports

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, 10 Apr 2020 15:46:29 -0400
From:   Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm: Two small fixes for recent syzbot reports



> On Apr 10, 2020, at 1:26 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 10:26:23 -0400 Qian Cai <cai@....pw> wrote:
> 
>> I don't set panic_on_warn. I'll deal with warnings afterwards.
> 
> I'm not understanding why sysbot sets panic_on_warn.  This decision
> will needlessly turn many kernel errors into wont-boot situations and
> will block further testing?

I can feel that it is very reasonable to set panic_on_warn for the fully
automatic systems because once those warnings happen, the rest of
things can no longer to be trusted, so the goal to kill the first enemy
on sight, and then deal the next one.

It could be a good idea for some trees more stable like the mainline,
but for linux-next, I could only dream of set it one day.