Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 7 May 2020 18:50:46 +0000
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Rafael Aquini <aquini@redhat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        dyoung@redhat.com, bhe@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
        keescook@chromium.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, cai@lca.pw,
        rdunlap@infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kernel: add panic_on_taint
Message-ID: <20200507185046.GY11244@42.do-not-panic.com>
References: <20200507180631.308441-1-aquini@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200507180631.308441-1-aquini@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 02:06:31PM -0400, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> Another, perhaps less frequent, use for this option would be
> as a mean for assuring a security policy (in paranoid mode)
> case where no single taint is allowed for the running system.

If used for this purpose then we must add a new TAINT flag for
proc_taint() was used, otherwise we can cheat to show a taint
*did* happen, where in fact it never happened, some punk just
echo'd a value into the kernel's /proc/sys/kernel/tainted.

Forunately proc_taint() only allows to *increment* the taint, not
reduce.

  Luis