lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/1] mm: sysctl: add panic_on_inconsistent_mm sysctl
On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 10:06:11AM -0500, Qian Cai wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-02-03 at 15:08 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> >
> > On 29.01.20 19:39, Qian Cai wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jan 29, 2020, at 1:08 PM, Grzegorz Halat <ghalat@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Memory management subsystem performs various checks at runtime,
> > > > if an inconsistency is detected then such event is being logged and kernel
> > > > continues to run. While debugging such problems it is helpful to collect
> > > > memory dump as early as possible. Currently, there is no easy way to panic
> > > > kernel when such error is detected.
> > > >
> > > > It was proposed[1] to panic the kernel if panic_on_oops is set but this
> > > > approach was not accepted. One of alternative proposals was introduction of
> > > > a new sysctl.
> > > >
> > > > Add a new sysctl - panic_on_inconsistent_mm. If the sysctl is set then the
> > > > kernel will be crashed when an inconsistency is detected by memory
> > > > management. This currently means panic when bad page or bad PTE
> > > > is detected(this may be extended to other places in MM).
> > > >
> > > > Another use case of this sysctl may be in security-wise environments,
> > > > it may be more desired to crash machine than continue to run with
> > > > potentially damaged data structures.
> > >
> > > It is annoying that I have to repeat my feedback, but I don’t know why
> > > admins want to enable this by allowing normal users to crash the systems
> > > more easily through recoverable MM bugs where I am sure we have plenty.
> > > How does that improve the security?
> >
> > There are cases where data corruption is a no-go, while "one node going down"
> > is acceptable.
> > And then there is also the case for payed service providers that often need
> > a dump at the time of the problem to understand rare issues.
> >
> > So I DO see value in such a thing. We should just piggy-back on panic_on_warn
> > I guess.
> >
>
> Indeed, so change pr_alert() to pr_warn() there then?

pr_* are just printk levels. If you want a full trace and to hook to
panic_on_warn, you want WARN_ON(condition) (or WARN_ON_ONCE(), etc).

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-05 23:23    [W:0.092 / U:1.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site