[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202005072244.F2E0286@keescook>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 22:47:08 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc: jeyu@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, arnd@...db.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, aquini@...hat.com,
cai@....pw, dyoung@...hat.com, bhe@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, gpiccoli@...onical.com,
pmladek@...e.com, tiwai@...e.de, schlad@...e.de,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, daniel.vetter@...ll.ch,
will@...nel.org, mchehab+samsung@...nel.org, kvalo@...eaurora.org,
davem@...emloft.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] taint: add module firmware crash taint support
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 02:14:38AM +0000, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> Device driver firmware can crash, and sometimes, this can leave your
> system in a state which makes the device or subsystem completely
> useless. Detecting this by inspecting /proc/sys/kernel/tainted instead
> of scraping some magical words from the kernel log, which is driver
> specific, is much easier. So instead provide a helper which lets drivers
> annotate this.
>
> Once this happens, scrapers can easily scrape modules taint flags.
> This will taint both the kernel and respective calling module.
>
> The new helper module_firmware_crashed() uses LOCKDEP_STILL_OK as
> this fact should in no way shape or form affect lockdep. This taint
> is device driver specific.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
> ---
>
> Below is the full diff stat of manual inspection throughout the kernel
> when this happens. My methodology is to just scrape for "crash" and
> then study the driver a bit to see if indeed it seems like that the
> firmware crashes there. In *many* cases there is even infrastructure
> for this, so this is sometimes clearly obvious. Some other times it
> required a bit of deciphering.
>
> The diff stat below is what I have so far, however the patch below
> only includes the drivers that start with Q, as they were a source of
> inspiration for this, and to make this RFC easier to read.
>
> If this seems sensible, I can follow up with the kernel helper first,
> and then tackle each subsystem independently.
>
> I purposely skipped review of remoteproc and virtualization. That should
> require its own separate careful review and considerations.
This all seems reasonable to me. You might need to break these up into
per-maintainer patches to get appropriate review. Perhaps land the
infrastructure and some initial patches via netdev and in the next
release send patches for DRM, media, etc?
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists