On 10/30, Kees Cook wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:22 AM, kernel test robot
><xiaolong...@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-4.9):
>>
>> commit: 7f7c60e0663645e757e520245606fde9c6e326bb ("printk: hash addresses
>> printed with %p")
>> url:
>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Tobin-C-Harding/printk-hash-addresses-printed-with-p/20171024-231922
>
>It's not clear to me which of the various versions this test ran
We'll improve it by showing the version info for LKML patchset.
Thanks,
Xiaolong
>against, but it seems like the printf self-tests got very confused by
>the results:
>
>> [ 40.275423] test_printf: kvasprintf(..., "%p %p", ...) returned '3cf9adbe
>> eff717bf', expected '0000000001234567 fffffffffedcba98'
>> [ 40.296739] test_printf: vsnprintf(buf, 256, "|%-*p|%*p|", ...) returned
>> 19, expected 39
>> [ 40.322776] test_printf: vsnprintf(buf, 16, "|%-*p|%*p|", ...) returned
>> 19, expected 39
>> [ 40.334834] test_printf: vsnprintf(buf, 0, "|%-*p|%*p|", ...) returned
>> 19, expected 39
>
>I assume v10 will fix the width issues, but probably not the value tests...
>
>And it claims a use-after-free, too:
>
>> [ 39.757461] The buggy address belongs to the object at 22cb34bb
>> [ 39.757461] which belongs to the cache kmalloc-32 of size 32
>> [ 39.757461] The buggy address is located 0 bytes inside of
>> [ 39.757461] 32-byte region [22cb34bb, 24ac3a60)
>
>Which becomes rather unreadable, since the address got hashed. :P
>
>-Kees
>
>--
>Kees Cook
>Pixel Security
