On 10/24/20 10:41 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 04:11:00PM +0200, Filippo Valsorda wrote: >> Fair enough, but "there's no auto-assembly and it's inefficient and >> nothing stops you from messing with the intermediate discipline" is a >> different kind of not supported than "you should expect kernel panics". >> >> If the latter is the case, maybe it should be documented in the >> softraid(4) CAVEATS, as it breaks the sd(4) abstraction. > > Neither Joel's mail nor the word "unsupported" imply a promise > that it will work without auto-assembly and with inefficient i/o. > > Unsupported means unsupported. We don't need to list any reasons > for this in user-facing documentation.
One could also argue that the kernel must never panic because userspace did something wrong. The only exceptions I am aware of are: - init dying - corrupt kernel image - corrupt root filesystem - not being able to mount the root filesystem - overwriting kernel memory with /dev/mem or DMA - hardware fault In particular, I would expect that at securelevel 1 or higher, userspace should not be able to cause a fatal kernel page fault. Demi
OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
