> This could be a BUG, but I'd rather not panic the entire kernel. It seems unlikely that it will panic without panic_on_oops and that's an explicit opt-in to taking down the system on kernel logic errors exactly like this. In grsecurity, it calls the kernel exploit handling logic (panic if root, otherwise kill all process of that user and ban them until reboot) but that same logic is also called for BUG via oops handling so there's only really a distinction with panic_on_oops=1. Does it make sense to be less fatal for a fatal assertion that's more likely to be security-related? Maybe you're worried about having some false positives for the whitelisting portion, but I don't think those will lurk around very long with the way this works.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
