Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:25:07AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 5 December 2017 at 08:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:45:37PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >> On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 09:25:07AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 5 December 2017 at 08:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:45:37PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >> On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:24:10PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/05/17 at 04:45pm, Dave Young wrote: > > On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 05:24:10PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/05/17 at 04:45pm, Dave Young wrote: > > On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > On

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/05/17 at 09:52am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:45:37PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > >

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/05/17 at 09:52am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:45:37PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > >

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 5 December 2017 at 08:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:45:37PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm,

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 5 December 2017 at 08:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:45:37PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/05/17 at 04:45pm, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > > >

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/05/17 at 04:45pm, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > > >

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:45:37PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:45:37PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > > Sent: 04 December 2017

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/05/17 at 09:09am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > > Sent: 04 December 2017

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:03 > > > ... > > > > and uses __ATTR_RO() to emit

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:14:34PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > > > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:03 > > > ... > > > > and uses __ATTR_RO() to emit

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:03 > > ... > > > and uses __ATTR_RO() to emit initializers for it. __ATTR() initializes > > > the .store member as well, which

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/04/17 at 03:00pm, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:03 > > ... > > > and uses __ATTR_RO() to emit initializers for it. __ATTR() initializes > > > the .store member as well, which

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:03 > ... > > and uses __ATTR_RO() to emit initializers for it. __ATTR() initializes > > the .store member as well, which does not exists, and so it cannot be > > used directly. > > >

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:13PM +, David Laight wrote: > From: Ard Biesheuvel > > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:03 > ... > > and uses __ATTR_RO() to emit initializers for it. __ATTR() initializes > > the .store member as well, which does not exists, and so it cannot be > > used directly. > > >

RE: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

From: Ard Biesheuvel > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:03 ... > and uses __ATTR_RO() to emit initializers for it. __ATTR() initializes > the .store member as well, which does not exists, and so it cannot be > used directly. > > So we should either add a .store member that is always NULL, or we > should

RE: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

From: Ard Biesheuvel > Sent: 04 December 2017 10:03 ... > and uses __ATTR_RO() to emit initializers for it. __ATTR() initializes > the .store member as well, which does not exists, and so it cannot be > used directly. > > So we should either add a .store member that is always NULL, or we > should

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:03:19AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 December 2017 at 09:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:48:37AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 4 December 2017 at 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >>

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:03:19AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 December 2017 at 09:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:48:37AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 4 December 2017 at 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 4 December 2017 at 09:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:48:37AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 4 December 2017 at 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:29:28PM +0800, Dave Young

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 4 December 2017 at 09:59, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:48:37AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 4 December 2017 at 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:29:28PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> >> On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:48:37AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 December 2017 at 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:29:28PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >> On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:48:37AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 December 2017 at 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:29:28PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > >> On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 4 December 2017 at 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:29:28PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> > > +#define

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 4 December 2017 at 09:34, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:29:28PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: >> > > +#define __ATTR_IRUSR(_name) {

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:29:28PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > +#define __ATTR_IRUSR(_name) { > > > \ > > > + .attr = { .name =

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 05:29:28PM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > > +#define __ATTR_IRUSR(_name) { > > > \ > > > + .attr = { .name =

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > +#define __ATTR_IRUSR(_name) { > > \ > > + .attr = { .name = __stringify(_name), .mode = S_IRUSR }, \ > > + .show =

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/04/17 at 08:36am, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > +#define __ATTR_IRUSR(_name) { > > \ > > + .attr = { .name = __stringify(_name), .mode = S_IRUSR }, \ > > + .show =

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > +#define __ATTR_IRUSR(_name) { > \ > + .attr = { .name = __stringify(_name), .mode = S_IRUSR }, \ > + .show = _name##_show, \ > +}

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 10:02:16AM +0800, Dave Young wrote: > +#define __ATTR_IRUSR(_name) { > \ > + .attr = { .name = __stringify(_name), .mode = S_IRUSR }, \ > + .show = _name##_show, \ > +}

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/03/17 at 06:33pm, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 10:02 +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > I think 0400 is good enough for this issue. > > > > Greg, would you like to agree add an extra macro like below? > [] > > -static struct map_attribute map_type_attr = __ATTR_RO(type); > > -static

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/03/17 at 06:33pm, Joe Perches wrote: > On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 10:02 +0800, Dave Young wrote: > > I think 0400 is good enough for this issue. > > > > Greg, would you like to agree add an extra macro like below? > [] > > -static struct map_attribute map_type_attr = __ATTR_RO(type); > > -static

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 10:02 +0800, Dave Young wrote: > I think 0400 is good enough for this issue. > > Greg, would you like to agree add an extra macro like below? [] > -static struct map_attribute map_type_attr = __ATTR_RO(type); > -static struct map_attribute map_phys_addr_attr =

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 10:02 +0800, Dave Young wrote: > I think 0400 is good enough for this issue. > > Greg, would you like to agree add an extra macro like below? [] > -static struct map_attribute map_type_attr = __ATTR_RO(type); > -static struct map_attribute map_phys_addr_attr =

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/02/17 at 10:22pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > (Cc'ing Dave since this is used for kexec on EFI) > > On Fri, 01 Dec, at 09:54:43AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/02/17 at 10:22pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > (Cc'ing Dave since this is used for kexec on EFI) > > On Fri, 01 Dec, at 09:54:43AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > >> On

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/02/17 at 10:22pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > (Cc'ing Dave since this is used for kexec on EFI) > > On Fri, 01 Dec, at 09:54:43AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 12/02/17 at 10:22pm, Matt Fleming wrote: > (Cc'ing Dave since this is used for kexec on EFI) > > On Fri, 01 Dec, at 09:54:43AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman > > wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > >> On

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

(Cc'ing Dave since this is used for kexec on EFI) On Fri, 01 Dec, at 09:54:43AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 30 November 2017 at 17:10,

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

(Cc'ing Dave since this is used for kexec on EFI) On Fri, 01 Dec, at 09:54:43AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> wrote:

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 1 December 2017 at 16:33, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > >> And isn't there a specific %p modifier you should use for a kernel >> pointer. I've lost the thread here for what should, or should

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 1 December 2017 at 16:33, Kees Cook wrote: > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > >> And isn't there a specific %p modifier you should use for a kernel >> pointer. I've lost the thread here for what should, or should not, be >> done for kernel pointers these days

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > And isn't there a specific %p modifier you should use for a kernel > pointer. I've lost the thread here for what should, or should not, be > done for kernel pointers these days based on the long email

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > And isn't there a specific %p modifier you should use for a kernel > pointer. I've lost the thread here for what should, or should not, be > done for kernel pointers these days based on the long email discussion. Current

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:54:43AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >>

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:54:43AM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:32:35PM +, Greg

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 1 December 2017 at 09:48, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman >> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:32:35PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:32:35PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >>

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 05:18:42PM +, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:32:35PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:17:47PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > So changing it to use __ATTR() should fix this remaning leakage up. > > That is if we even really need to export these values at all.

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 06:17:47PM -0500, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > > > So changing it to use __ATTR() should fix this remaning leakage up. > > That is if we even really need to export these values at all. What does > > userspace do

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > So changing it to use __ATTR() should fix this remaning leakage up. > That is if we even really need to export these values at all. What does > userspace do with them? Shouldn't they just be in debugfs

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:10 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > So changing it to use __ATTR() should fix this remaning leakage up. > That is if we even really need to export these values at all. What does > userspace do with them? Shouldn't they just be in debugfs instead? So what I find

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:32:35PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Linus Torvalds >> >

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On 30 November 2017 at 17:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:32:35PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Linus Torvalds >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > Not because %pK itself

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:32:35PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > > > > > Not because %pK itself changed, but because the semantics

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 04:32:35PM +, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > > > > > Not because %pK itself changed, but because the semantics of %p did. > > > The baseline

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > Not because %pK itself changed, but because the semantics of %p did. > > The baseline moved, and the "safe" version did not. > > Btw,

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:36:25PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > Not because %pK itself changed, but because the semantics of %p did. > > The baseline moved, and the "safe" version did not. > > Btw, that baseline for me is now

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Not because %pK itself changed, but because the semantics of %p did. > The baseline moved, and the "safe" version did not. Btw, that baseline for me is now that I can do ./scripts/leaking_addresses.pl |

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Not because %pK itself changed, but because the semantics of %p did. > The baseline moved, and the "safe" version did not. Btw, that baseline for me is now that I can do ./scripts/leaking_addresses.pl | wc -l 18 and of those 18

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it >> completely breaks '%pK'. >> >> We've

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it >> completely breaks '%pK'. >> >> We've marked various sensitive pointers with %pK, but that is now >>

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > > If you haven't wasted enough time on this can you tell me what you mean > > by 'completely breaks %pK'? > > The whole point of %pK is that it's a

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:14:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > > If you haven't wasted enough time on this can you tell me what you mean > > by 'completely breaks %pK'? > > The whole point of %pK is that it's a "safer" %p that

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > If you haven't wasted enough time on this can you tell me what you mean > by 'completely breaks %pK'? The whole point of %pK is that it's a "safer" %p that doesn't leak information if you set kptr_restrict. With that

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > If you haven't wasted enough time on this can you tell me what you mean > by 'completely breaks %pK'? The whole point of %pK is that it's a "safer" %p that doesn't leak information if you set kptr_restrict. With that patch-set, it now

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22:29AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > > git://github.com/tcharding/linux.git tags/printk-hash-pointer-4.15-rc2 > > Bah. Sorry for creating extra work for you. > What I didn't realize

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22:29AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > > > git://github.com/tcharding/linux.git tags/printk-hash-pointer-4.15-rc2 > > Bah. Sorry for creating extra work for you. > What I didn't realize until after

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > I'd prefer a global sed of '%pK' to '%pxK' and remove '%pK' altogether No, we really don't want %pK to become %pxK. Most of the %pK users absolutely do not want the real hex address. They are things like the socket

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > I'd prefer a global sed of '%pK' to '%pxK' and remove '%pK' altogether No, we really don't want %pK to become %pxK. Most of the %pK users absolutely do not want the real hex address. They are things like the socket pointers in /proc etc.

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:39 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it > > completely breaks '%pK'. > > > > We've marked various sensitive

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:39 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it > > completely breaks '%pK'. > > > > We've marked various sensitive pointers with %pK, but that is

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it > completely breaks '%pK'. > > We've marked various sensitive pointers with %pK, but that is now > _less_ secure than %p is, since it

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it > completely breaks '%pK'. > > We've marked various sensitive pointers with %pK, but that is now > _less_ secure than %p is, since it doesn't do the hashing because

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > git://github.com/tcharding/linux.git tags/printk-hash-pointer-4.15-rc2 Bah. What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it completely breaks '%pK'. We've marked various sensitive pointers with

Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > > git://github.com/tcharding/linux.git tags/printk-hash-pointer-4.15-rc2 Bah. What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it completely breaks '%pK'. We've marked various sensitive pointers with %pK, but that

[GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

The following changes since commit 4fbd8d194f06c8a3fd2af1ce560ddb31f7ec8323: Linux 4.15-rc1 (2017-11-26 16:01:47 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/tcharding/linux.git tags/printk-hash-pointer-4.15-rc2 for you to fetch changes up to

[GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

The following changes since commit 4fbd8d194f06c8a3fd2af1ce560ddb31f7ec8323: Linux 4.15-rc1 (2017-11-26 16:01:47 -0800) are available in the git repository at: git://github.com/tcharding/linux.git tags/printk-hash-pointer-4.15-rc2 for you to fetch changes up to