netdev - Re: [RFC v2 3/6] kthread: warn on kill signal if not OOM

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:	Fri, 05 Sep 2014 16:05:30 -0700
From:	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	"Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...not-panic.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Wu Zhangjin <falcon@...zu.com>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, hare@...e.com,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
	Joseph Salisbury <joseph.salisbury@...onical.com>,
	Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.de>,
	Santosh Rastapur <santosh@...lsio.com>,
	Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Tim Gardner <tim.gardner@...onical.com>,
	Pierre Fersing <pierre-fersing@...rref.org>,
	Nagalakshmi Nandigama <nagalakshmi.nandigama@...gotech.com>,
	Praveen Krishnamoorthy <praveen.krishnamoorthy@...gotech.com>,
	Sreekanth Reddy <sreekanth.reddy@...gotech.com>,
	Abhijit Mahajan <abhijit.mahajan@...gotech.com>,
	Casey Leedom <leedom@...lsio.com>,
	Hariprasad S <hariprasad@...lsio.com>,
	MPT-FusionLinux.pdl@...gotech.com,
	Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 3/6] kthread: warn on kill signal if not OOM

On 9/5/2014 3:52 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 03:45:08PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>> On 9/5/2014 3:29 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Hello, Dmitry.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:10:03AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>> I do not agree that it is actually user-visible change: generally speaking you
>>>> do not really know if device is there or not. They come and go. Like I said,
>>>> consider all permutations, with hot-pluggable buses, deferred probing, etc,
>>>
>>> It is for storage devices which always have guaranteed synchronous
>>> probing on module load and well-defined probing order.  Sure, modern
>>> setups are a lot more dynamic but I'm quite certain that there are
>>> setups in the wild which depend on storage driver loading being
>>> synchronous.  We can't simply declare one day that such behavior is
>>> broken and break, most likely, their boots.
>>
>> we even depend on this in the mount-by-label cases
>>
>> many setups assume that the internal storage prevails over the USB stick in the case of conflicts.
>> it's a security issue; you don't want the built in secure bootloader that has a kernel root argument
>> by label/uuid.
>> the security there tends to assume that built-in wins over USB
>
> Ahem... and they sure it works reliably with large storage arrays? With
> SCSI doing probing asynchronously already?

you tend to trust your large storage array
you tend to not trust the walk up USB stick.

--
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