linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] exit: Put an upper limit on how often we can oops

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]

Message-ID: <CAG48ez2-xUawSs4ji_+0Bnyn_QTiS930UiOypXreU_RhwhVo_w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 22:48:20 +0100
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Seth Jenkins <sethjenkins@...gle.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: Put an upper limit on how often we can oops

On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 10:15 PM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:13:17PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > +oops_limit
> > +==========
> > +
> > +Number of kernel oopses after which the kernel should panic when
> > +``panic_on_oops`` is not set.
>
> Rather than introduce this separate oops_limit, how about making
> panic_on_oops (and maybe all panic_on_*) take the limit value(s) instead
> of being Boolean?  I think this would preserve the current behavior at
> panic_on_oops = 0 and panic_on_oops = 1, but would introduce your
> desired behavior at panic_on_oops = 10000.  We can make 10000 the new
> default.  If a distro overrides panic_on_oops, it probably sets it to 1
> like RHEL does.
>
> Are there distros explicitly setting panic_on_oops to 0?  If so, that
> could be a reason to introduce the separate oops_limit.
>
> I'm not advocating one way or the other - I just felt this should be
> explicitly mentioned and decided on.

I think at least internally in the kernel, it probably works better to
keep those two concepts separate? For example, sparc has a function
die_nmi() that uses panic_on_oops to determine whether the system
should panic when a watchdog detects a lockup.