netdev - Re: Top 10 kernel oopses/warnings for the week of December 21st 2007

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071221162242.GA29959@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:22:42 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Top 10 kernel oopses/warnings for the week of December 21st 2007

> in this case this is really all the version information available ;(
> it seems to be a patched kernel without patched EXTRAVERSION.
> But in the future if I have more specific information (eg it's only 1 
> kernel version) I'll mention it in more detail.
> It gets unwieldy if there's 500 reports for an oops of course ;)

Hmm would there be an automatic way to check out the file of the 
kernel version and then check if the BUG_ON/WARN_ON is on that line?
Maybe it could be done using git.

> 
> >
> >Anyways there are a lot of third party modules who do strange 
> >things with c_p_a(), not always legal, so you might look up out for that 
> >pattern too. Perhaps report the out of tree modules loaded in the 
> >summary too?
> 
> I already always will mention if the oops is tainted or not (that I track 
> specifically);

I don't necessarily mean tainted, just out of tree modules in general.
There are some GPL modules who do strange things too. Not saying
that these oopses should be all ignored -- they might be legitimate
kernel bugs that they just trigger -- just it should be visible somehow
in the summary in case there is a pattern. 

Especially for c_p_a() i'm quite suspicious
because it depends a lot on what the caller did.

One way perhaps would be also to check if there is an out of tree
module inside the backtrace. I suppose you could keep a list 
of in tree modules and do this automatically. Of course there could
be false positives too with the standard inexact backtrace.

-Andi

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html