linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kernel: add panic_on

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:   Thu, 7 May 2020 19:36:34 -0400
From:   Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        kexec@...ts.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        dyoung@...hat.com, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kernel: add panic_on_taint

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 07:07:20PM -0400, Qian Cai wrote:
> 
> 
> > On May 7, 2020, at 6:15 PM, Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It's a reasonable and self-contained feature that we have a valid use for. 
> > I honestly fail to see it causing that amount of annoyance as you are 
> > suggesting here.
> 
> It is not a big trouble yet, but keeping an obsolete patch that not very straightforward to figure out that it will be superseded by the panic_on_taint patch will only cause more confusion the longer it has stayed in linux-next.
> 
> The thing is that even if you can’t get this panic_on_taint (the superior solution) patch accepted for some reasons, someone else could still work on it until it get merged.
> 
> Thus, I failed to see any possibility we will go back to the inferior solution (mm-slub-add-panic_on_error-to-the-debug-facilities.patch) by all means.
>

There are plenty of examples of things being added, changed, and
removed in -next. IOW, living in a transient state. I think it's 
a reasonable compromise to keep it while the other one is beind 
ironed out.

The fact that you prefer one solution to another doesn't
invalidate the one you dislike. 

Cheers,
-- Rafael