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:   Sun, 3 Oct 2021 00:05:56 +0300
From:   Alexander Popov <>
To:     Linus Torvalds <>
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 02.10.2021 19:52, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 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.

I was thinking about a use case for you and got an insight.

Bugs usually don't come alone. Killing the process that got WARN_ON() prevents
possible bad effects **after** the warning. For example, in my exploit for
CVE-2019-18683, the kernel warning happens **before** the memory corruption
(use-after-free in the V4L2 subsystem).

So pkill_on_warn allows the kernel to stop the process when the first signs of
wrong behavior are detected. In other words, proceeding with the code execution
from the wrong state can bring more disasters later.

> 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).

Yes, we slowly get rid of kernel warnings.
However, the syzbot dashboard still shows a lot of them.
Even my small syzkaller setup finds plenty of new warnings.
I believe fixing all of them will take some time.
And during that time, pkill_on_warn may be a better reaction to WARN_ON() than
ignoring and proceeding with the execution.

Is that reasonable?

Best regards,

Powered by blists - more mailing lists