Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:14:01 -0600 | From | Josh Poimboeuf <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] lib_backtrace: fix kernel text address leak |
| |
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 12:56:48AM +0800, Liu, Changcheng wrote: > Don't leak idle function address in NMI backtrace. > > Signed-off-by: Liu Changcheng <changcheng.liu@intel.com> > > diff --git a/lib/nmi_backtrace.c b/lib/nmi_backtrace.c > index 46e4c749..61a6b5a 100644 > --- a/lib/nmi_backtrace.c > +++ b/lib/nmi_backtrace.c > @@ -93,8 +93,8 @@ bool nmi_cpu_backtrace(struct pt_regs *regs) > if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, to_cpumask(backtrace_mask))) { > arch_spin_lock(&lock); > if (regs && cpu_in_idle(instruction_pointer(regs))) { > - pr_warn("NMI backtrace for cpu %d skipped: idling at pc %#lx\n", > - cpu, instruction_pointer(regs)); > + pr_warn("NMI backtrace for cpu %d skipped: idling at %pS\n", > + cpu, (void *)instruction_pointer(regs)); > } else { > pr_warn("NMI backtrace for cpu %d\n", cpu); > if (regs)
Sorry, I had a typo in my suggestion. The subject prefix should be: "nmi_backtrace" instead of "lib_backtrace".
Also, when posting a followup patch, please remove the "Re: " from the subject so that it's clear that it's a new patch, and not a comment for the old one.
Otherwise it looks great to me. Thanks!
-- Josh
| |