From: Anthony Iliopoulos <ailiop@suse.com>
To: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>,
corbet@lwn.net, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
skhan@linuxfoundation.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] killswitch: add per-function short-circuit mitigation primitive
Date: Mon, 11 May 2026 12:33:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <agGweC12aloH8DBq@foo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <af8pw54Y-Q18kSR0@laps>
On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 08:34:11AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2026 at 02:02:24PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Sasha Levin:
> >
> > > When a kernel (security) issue goes public, fleets stay exposed until a patched
> > > kernel is built, distributed, and rebooted into.
> > >
> > > For many such issues the simplest mitigation is to stop calling the buggy
> > > function. Killswitch provides that. An admin writes:
> > >
> > > echo "engage af_alg_sendmsg -1" \
> > > > /sys/kernel/security/killswitch/control
> > >
> > > After this, af_alg_sendmsg() returns -EPERM on every call without
> > > running its body. The mitigation takes effect immediately, and is dropped on
> > > the next reboot -- by which point a patched kernel is hopefully in place.
> >
> > Do you expect this to be safe to enable in kernel lockdown mode (i.e.,
> > with typical Secure Boot configurations in distributions)?
>
> Yes: under lockdown, killswitch has to be configured on the cmdline. Runtime
> engage is gated on the new LOCKDOWN_KILLSWITCH reason.
Basically this proposal allows for any function to be overridden on a
production kernel as long as no lockdown level is enabled, which is quite
dangerous.
Assuming this is acceptable (which I am not sure it should be), then this
is equivalent to the existing error injection code that we already have in
the kernel (CONFIG_FAIL_FUNCTION) minus the explicit whitelisting on a per
function basis required to permit injection.
Given that this achieves the exact same result, then why don't we consider
simply removing the whitelisting restriction from fail_function altogether
and use that instead? The only thing missing then would be the boot param
parsing and setup.
This way we'll be removing a few hundred lines of code instead of adding
more duplication, while enabling the same functionality.
[As a bonus, this would also make the existing framework more practical to
use for testing arbitrary function failures. I have been carrying a debug
only patch to that effect for a while, which basically just shorts the
whitelisting check when CONFIG_FUNCTION_ERROR_INJECTION_ALLOW_ALL=y.]
Regards,
Anthony
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-11 10:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-08 19:57 [PATCH v2] killswitch: add per-function short-circuit mitigation primitive Sasha Levin
2026-05-09 12:02 ` Florian Weimer
2026-05-09 12:34 ` Sasha Levin
2026-05-11 10:33 ` Anthony Iliopoulos [this message]
2026-05-11 11:15 ` Sasha Levin
2026-05-11 17:23 ` Anthony Iliopoulos
2026-05-11 20:12 ` Sasha Levin
2026-05-11 13:14 ` Breno Leitao
2026-05-11 13:41 ` Sasha Levin
2026-05-11 14:59 ` Breno Leitao
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=agGweC12aloH8DBq@foo \
--to=ailiop@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=fw@deneb.enyo.de \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@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