Re: [PATCH] kfence: check kfence canary in panic and reboot

[Shaobo Huang <huangshaobo6@huawei.com>]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:28:45 +0200, Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2022 at 15:06, Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > This report will denote that in a system that could have been running for days a particular skbuff was corrupted by some unknown task at some unknown point in time.
> > How do we figure out what exactly caused this corruption?
> >
> > When we deploy KFENCE at scale, it is rarely possible for the kernel developer to get access to the host that reported the bug and try to reproduce it.
> > With that in mind, the report (plus the kernel source) must contain all the necessary information to address the bug, otherwise reporting it will result in wasting the developer's time.
> > Moreover, if we report such bugs too often, our tool loses the credit, which is hard to regain.
> 
> I second this - in particular we'll want this off in fuzzers etc.,
> because it'll just generate reports that nobody can use to debug an
> issue. I do see the value in this in potentially narrowing the cause
> of a panic, but that information is likely not enough to fully
> diagnose the root cause of the panic - it might however prompt to
> re-run with KASAN, or check if memory DIMMs are faulty etc.
> 
> We can still have this feature, but I suggest to make it
> off-by-default, and only enable via a boot param. I'd call it
> 'kfence.check_on_panic'. For your setup, you can then use it to enable
> where you see fit.

I agree to give users the option to use this feature.

> Thanks,
>-- Marco