lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V8 0/2] printk: hash addresses printed with %p
From
Date
On Tue, 2017-10-31 at 09:33 +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 03:03:21PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc> wrote:
> > > Here is the behaviour that this set implements.
> > >
> > > For kpt_restrict==0
> > >
> > > Randomness not ready:
> > > printed with %p: (pointer) # NOTE: with padding
> > > Valid pointer:
> > > printed with %pK: deadbeefdeadbeef
> > > printed with %p: 0xdeadbeef
> > > malformed specifier (eg %i): 0xdeadbeef
> >
> > I really think we can't include SPECIAL unless _every_ callsite of %p
> > is actually doing "0x%p", and then we're replacing all of those. We're
> > not doing that, though...
> >
> > $ git grep '%p\b' | wc -l
> > 12766
> > $ git grep '0x%p\b' | wc -l
> > 18370x
> >
> > If we need some kind of special marking that this is a hashed
> > variable, that should be something other than "0x". If we're using the
> > existing "(null)" and new "(pointer)" text, maybe "(hash:xxxxxx)"
> > should be used instead? Then the (rare) callers with 0x become
> > "0x(hash:xxxx)" and naked callers produce "(hash:xxxx)".
> >
> > I think the first step for this is to just leave SPECIAL out.
>
> Thanks Kees. V9 leaves SPECIAL out. Also V9 prints the whole 64 bit
> address with the first 32 bits masked to zero. The intent being to _not_
> change the output format from what it currently is. So it will look like
> this;
>
> 00000000c09e81d0
>
> What do you think?
>
> Amusingly I think this whole conversation is going to come up again
> when we do %pa, in inverse, since %pa currently does us SPECIAL.

I once sent a patch set to remove SPECIAL from %pa
and add 0x where necessary.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3875471/

After that didn't happen, I removed the duplicated
0x%pa with a sed.

https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/8509421/

Sending a treewide sed patch would be fine with me.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-10-31 03:09    [W:0.079 / U:0.924 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site