Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Timur Tabi
On 2/10/21 5:11 AM, Marco Elver wrote: I wanted to test this for deciding if we can show sensitive info in KFENCE reports, which works just fine now that debug_never_hash_pointers is non-static. FWIW, Acked-by: Marco Elver Thank you. But unfortunately this series broke some other

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2021/02/11 1:54, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:39:41AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: >> On 2021/02/11 1:18, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> The point of this exercise is to be able to debug the *same* kernel that >>> someone is having issues with. And this is to facilitate that

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 02:07:21 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I'm not refusing to use kernel command line options. I'm expecting that we can > also hardcode using kernel config options. Since boot-time switching via > kernel > command line options makes the kernel behave differently, less boot-time

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Timur Tabi
On 2/10/21 10:46 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: Now the question is, why do you need the unhashed pointer? Currently, the instruction pointer is what is fine right? You get the a function and its offset. If there's something that is needed, perhaps we should look at how to fix that, instead of

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2021/02/11 1:46, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 01:39:41 +0900 > Tetsuo Handa wrote: > >> On 2021/02/11 1:18, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>> The point of this exercise is to be able to debug the *same* kernel that >>> someone is having issues with. And this is to facilitate that

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 01:39:41AM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2021/02/11 1:18, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > The point of this exercise is to be able to debug the *same* kernel that > > someone is having issues with. And this is to facilitate that debugging. > > That's too difficult to use. If a

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Timur Tabi
On 2/10/21 5:47 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: It's a bit hard in some mailers (like Gmail) to see the different versions of your patches. Can you use in the future - either `git format-patch -v ...`, where is a version - or `git format-patch --subject-prefix="PATCH vX / RESEND / etc" ...` ?

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 01:39:41 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote: > On 2021/02/11 1:18, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > The point of this exercise is to be able to debug the *same* kernel that > > someone is having issues with. And this is to facilitate that debugging. > > That's too difficult to use. If a

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2021/02/11 1:18, Steven Rostedt wrote: > The point of this exercise is to be able to debug the *same* kernel that > someone is having issues with. And this is to facilitate that debugging. That's too difficult to use. If a problem is not reproducible, we will have no choice but always specify

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 00:46:15 +0900 Tetsuo Handa wrote: > Oh, I was wishing > > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c > index 3b53c73580c5..34c7e145ac3c 100644 > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c > @@ -802,7 +802,7 @@ static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, const void >

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Tetsuo Handa
On 2021/02/10 14:18, Timur Tabi wrote: > [accidentally sent from the wrong email address, so resending] > > [The list of email addresses on CC: is getting quite lengthy, > so I hope I've included everyone.] > > Although hashing addresses printed via printk does make the > kernel more secure, it

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:33 AM Timur Tabi wrote: > > [accidentally sent from the wrong email address, so resending] > > [The list of email addresses on CC: is getting quite lengthy, > so I hope I've included everyone.] > > Although hashing addresses printed via printk does make the > kernel

Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-10 Thread Marco Elver
On Tue, Feb 09, 2021 at 11:18PM -0600, Timur Tabi wrote: > [accidentally sent from the wrong email address, so resending] > > [The list of email addresses on CC: is getting quite lengthy, > so I hope I've included everyone.] > > Although hashing addresses printed via printk does make the >

[PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

2021-02-09 Thread Timur Tabi
[accidentally sent from the wrong email address, so resending] [The list of email addresses on CC: is getting quite lengthy, so I hope I've included everyone.] Although hashing addresses printed via printk does make the kernel more secure, it interferes with debugging, especially with some