linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v1] mm/gup: fix FOLL_FORCE COW security issue and remove FOLL

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:   Tue, 9 Aug 2022 21:16:15 +0000
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
To:     'Jason Gunthorpe' <jgg@...dia.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        "Hugh Dickins" <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1] mm/gup: fix FOLL_FORCE COW security issue and remove
 FOLL_COW

From: Jason Gunthorpe
> Sent: 09 August 2022 20:08
> 
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 11:59:45AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> > But as a very good approximation, the rule is "absolutely no new
> > BUG_ON() calls _ever_". Because I really cannot see a single case
> > where "proper error handling and WARN_ON_ONCE()" isn't the right
> > thing.
> 
> Parallel to this discussion I've had ones where people more or less
> say
> 
>  Since BUG_ON crashes the machine and Linus says that crashing the
>  machine is bad, WARN_ON will also crash the machine if you set the
>  panic_on_warn parameter, so it is also bad, thus we shouldn't use
>  anything.
> 
> I've generally maintained that people who set the panic_on_warn *want*
> these crashes, because that is the entire point of it. So we should
> use WARN_ON with an error recovery for "can't happen" assertions like
> these. I think it is what you are saying here.

They don't necessarily want the crashes, it is more the people who
built the distribution think they want the crashes.

I have had issues with a customer system (with our drivers) randomly
locking up.
Someone had decided that 'PANIC_ON_OOPS' was a good idea but hadn't
enabled anything to actually take the dump.

So instead of a diagnosable problem (and a 'doh' moment) you
get several weeks of head scratching and a very annoyed user.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)