linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] twist: allow converting pr_devel()/pr

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, 29 May 2020 10:17:48 +0200
From:   Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@...hat.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] twist: allow converting pr_devel()/pr_debug() into
 snprintf()

On Thu 2020-05-28 12:50:35, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:17 AM Tetsuo Handa
> <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> >
> > CONFIG_TWIST_FOR_SYZKALLER_TESTING is meant for linux-next only.
> > But CONFIG_TWIST_KERNEL_BEHAVIOR is meant for Linus's tree.
> 
> I really absolutely still detest this all. I don't see the point. The
> naming is completely random (both "twist" and then options like
> "TWIST_FOR_SYZKALLER_TESTING" that have no conceptual meaning.
>
> I still don't understand why this small set of random options couldn't
> just be kernel options that get set on the command line, and that have
> independent and sane and explainable behavior? Why this odd mentality
> of "syzkaller is special"?

I am afraid that many of them could not be normal options. They change or
break some behavior that is necessary by seriously used system.

> I've complained about this whole thing before. I'm getting really fed
> up with this whole concept of "magic crazy config options".

Just to make my role clear in this saga.

I am focused on the change of pr_debug() behavior. I do _not_ believe
that it is worth it. But I wanted to give fuzzer guys a chance to get
some data.

This is why I offered to push hacky patch into linux-next via printk
tree to get fuzzers fed. Such a patch would change the behavior only
for the fuzzer (with the crazy config enabled) and it would be there
only for a limited time.

I personally do _not_ have a good feeling about having such hacks in
upstream kernel. But I do not feel in position to decide about it.
I wanted to solve this question later if there would have been
anything to upstream.

I am _not_ going to push any twists, in the current form,
upstream via printk tree.

Best Regards,
Petr