On (11/30/17 19:26), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/30/17 10:23), David Laight wrote:
> [..]
> > > Maybe I'm being thick, but... if we're rendering these addresses
> > > unusable by hashing them, why not just print something like
> > > "<obscured>" in their place? That loses the uniqueness thing but I
> > > wonder how valuable that is in practice?
> >
> > My worry is that is you get a kernel 'oops' print with actual register
> > values you have no easy way of tying an address or address+offset to
> > the corresponding hash(address) printed elsewhere.
>
> print the existing hash:pointer mappings in panic()? [if we can do that]
by this I meant
"when oops_in_progress == 1 then print hash:pointer for %p,
not just hash".
-ss
