Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: kptr_restrict is okay in IRQ when 2

2016-02-05 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 9:46 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > > Instead of doing a double-check of kptr_restrict, how about moving > this logic down into the "case 1" test? I think that would be more > readable in the end. Good thinking. Will roll v2.

Re: [PATCH] vsprintf: kptr_restrict is okay in IRQ when 2

2016-02-05 Thread Kees Cook
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > The kptr_restrict flag, when set to 1, only prints the kernel > address when the user has CAP_SYSLOG. When it is set to 2, the > kernel address is always printed as zero. When set to 1, this > needs to check whether or not we're in IRQ. H

[PATCH] vsprintf: kptr_restrict is okay in IRQ when 2

2016-02-05 Thread Jason A. Donenfeld
The kptr_restrict flag, when set to 1, only prints the kernel address when the user has CAP_SYSLOG. When it is set to 2, the kernel address is always printed as zero. When set to 1, this needs to check whether or not we're in IRQ. However, when set to 2, this check is unneccessary, and produces con