On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:55 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
> %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
> single and multiple line statements for misuses of %p.
Should we also do this?
---
On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:55 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
> %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
> single and multiple line statements for misuses of %p.
Should we also do this?
---
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 16:11 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:55 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> > >
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 16:11 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Morton
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:55 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > > %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> > > This lead to some security concerns. Add the
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 16:06 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:55 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> > This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
> > single and multiple line
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:55 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
>
>> %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
>> This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
>>
On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 16:06 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:55 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
>
> > %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> > This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
> > single and multiple line statements for
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Morton
wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:54:55 -0800 Joe Perches wrote:
>
>> %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
>> This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
>> single and multiple line statements for misuses
e...@intel.com>; kernel-
> harden...@lists.openwall.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: [PATCH] checkpatch: Add ability to find bad uses of vsprintf %p
> extensions
>
> %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> This lead to some security concerns. Add the abi
checkpatch: Add ability to find bad uses of vsprintf %p
> extensions
>
> %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track single and
> multiple
> line statements for misuses of %p.
>
> Signed
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
> single and multiple line statements for misuses of %p.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
> %pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
> This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
> single and multiple line statements for misuses of %p.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
Acked-by: Kees Cook
%pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
single and multiple line statements for misuses of %p.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
---
Andrew, this has gone back and forth a few times.
It's imperfect
%pK was at least once misused at %pk in an out-of-tree module.
This lead to some security concerns. Add the ability to track
single and multiple line statements for misuses of %p.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches
---
Andrew, this has gone back and forth a few times.
It's imperfect as a patch
14 matches
Mail list logo