Re: [PATCH v2] kernel: add panic_on_taint

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:06:31PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> diff --git a/kernel/sysctl.c b/kernel/sysctl.c
> index 8a176d8727a3..b80ab660d727 100644
> --- a/kernel/sysctl.c
> +++ b/kernel/sysctl.c
> @@ -1217,6 +1217,13 @@ static struct ctl_table kern_table[] = {
>  		.extra1		= SYSCTL_ZERO,
>  		.extra2		= SYSCTL_ONE,
>  	},
> +	{
> +		.procname	= "panic_on_taint",
> +		.data		= &panic_on_taint,
> +		.maxlen		= sizeof(unsigned long),
> +		.mode		= 0644,
> +		.proc_handler	= proc_doulongvec_minmax,
> +	},

You sent this out before I could reply to the other thread on v1.
My thoughts on the min / max values, or lack here:
                                                                                
Valid range doesn't mean "currently allowed defined" masks.                     

For example, if you expect to panic due to a taint, but a new taint type
you want was not added on an older kernel you would be under a very
*false* sense of security that your kernel may not have hit such a
taint, but the reality of the situation was that the kernel didn't
support that taint flag only added in future kernels.                           

You may need to define a new flag (MAX_TAINT) which should be the last
value + 1, the allowed max values would be                                      

(2^MAX_TAINT)-1                                                                 

or                                                                              

(1<<MAX_TAINT)-1  

Since this is to *PANIC* I think we do want to test ranges and ensure
only valid ones are allowed.

  Luis



[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux