linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] How to test panic handlers, without crashing the kernel

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: <3d0c4180-aa6d-4519-d6d8-8f16b98587dc@igalia.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 14:50:51 -0300
From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@...lia.com>
To: Jocelyn Falempe <jfalempe@...hat.com>,
 Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>,
 John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
 Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
 Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@...il.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
 Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
 Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: "dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] How to test panic handlers, without crashing the kernel

On 05/03/2024 13:52, Jocelyn Falempe wrote:
> [...]
> Or maybe have two lists of panic notifiers, the safe and the destructive 
> list. So in case of fake panic, we can only call the safe notifiers.
> 

I tried something like that:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220427224924.592546-1-gpiccoli@igalia.com/

There were many suggestions, a completely refactor of the idea (panic
lists are not really seen as reliable things).

Given that, I'm not really sure splitting in lists gonna fly; maybe
restricting the test infrastructure to drm_panic plus some paths of
panic would be enough for this debugfs interface, in principle? I mean,
to unblock your work on the drm panic stuff.

Cheers,

Guilherme