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  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:   Sat, 2 Oct 2021 09:52:49 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <>
To:     Alexander Popov <>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Peter Zijlstra <>,
        Joerg Roedel <>,
        Maciej Rozycki <>,
        Muchun Song <>,
        Viresh Kumar <>,
        Robin Murphy <>,
        Randy Dunlap <>,
        Lu Baolu <>,
        Kees Cook <>,
        Luis Chamberlain <>, Wei Liu <>,
        John Ogness <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Alexey Kardashevskiy <>,
        Christophe Leroy <>,
        Jann Horn <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        Mark Rutland <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Dave Hansen <>,
        Steven Rostedt <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        David S Miller <>,
        Borislav Petkov <>,
        Kernel Hardening <>,,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce the pkill_on_warn boot parameter

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 4:41 AM Alexander Popov <> wrote:
> And what do you think about the proposed pkill_on_warn?

Honestly, I don't see the point.

If you can reliably trigger the WARN_ON some way, you can probably
cause more problems by fooling some other process to trigger it.

And if it's unintentional, then what does the signal help?

So rather than a "rationale" that makes little sense, I'd like to hear
of an actual _use_ case. That's different. That's somebody actually
_using_ that pkill to good effect for some particular load.

That said, I don't much care in the end. But it sounds like a
pointless option to just introduce yet another behavior to something
that should never happen anyway, and where the actual
honest-to-goodness reason for WARN_ON() existing is already being
fulfilled (ie syzbot has been very effective at flushing things like
that out).


Powered by blists - more mailing lists