From: Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linuxfoundation.org>,
Seth Jenkins <sethjenkins@google.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] exit: Put an upper limit on how often we can oops
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 22:14:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20221107211440.GA4233@openwall.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221107201317.324457-1-jannh@google.com>
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.
Alexander
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-07 21:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-07 20:13 [PATCH] exit: Put an upper limit on how often we can oops Jann Horn
2022-11-07 20:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2022-11-07 21:14 ` Solar Designer [this message]
2022-11-07 21:48 ` Jann Horn
2022-11-08 17:24 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-08 19:38 ` Kees Cook
2022-11-09 16:19 ` Solar Designer
2022-11-08 9:26 ` David Laight
2022-11-08 14:53 ` Jann Horn
2022-11-09 9:04 ` David Laight
2022-11-09 9:33 ` Jann Horn
2022-11-09 15:59 ` Seth Jenkins
2022-11-08 17:22 ` Kees Cook
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20221107211440.GA4233@openwall.com \
--to=solar@openwall.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=sethjenkins@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox