On Fri 2019-04-26 16:02:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 03:53:06PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> > On Fri 2019-04-19 10:51:12, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > On (04/17/19 13:53), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > > Crash in vsprintf() might be silent when it happens under logbuf_lock
>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 03:53:06PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Fri 2019-04-19 10:51:12, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > On (04/17/19 13:53), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > > Crash in vsprintf() might be silent when it happens under logbuf_lock
> > > in vprintk_emit(). This patch set prevents most of the
On Fri 2019-04-19 10:51:12, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (04/17/19 13:53), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Crash in vsprintf() might be silent when it happens under logbuf_lock
> > in vprintk_emit(). This patch set prevents most of the crashes by probing
> > the address. The check is done only by %s and
On (04/17/19 13:53), Petr Mladek wrote:
> Crash in vsprintf() might be silent when it happens under logbuf_lock
> in vprintk_emit(). This patch set prevents most of the crashes by probing
> the address. The check is done only by %s and some %p* specifiers that need
> to dereference the address.
>
Crash in vsprintf() might be silent when it happens under logbuf_lock
in vprintk_emit(). This patch set prevents most of the crashes by probing
the address. The check is done only by %s and some %p* specifiers that need
to dereference the address.
Only the first byte of the address is checked to
5 matches
Mail list logo
