Re: Long live %pK (was Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK)

2017-12-13 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Right. My email was only about the kptr_restrict = 1 case, but I didn't > actually make that clear. > > But that's also sort of my point, it has multiple modes of operation, > which is useful. No it isn't. It's completely useless. Let

Re: Long live %pK (was Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK)

2017-12-13 Thread Michael Ellerman
Linus Torvalds writes: > This is a perfect example of just %pK being complete shit. > > %pK doesn't actually do any file permissions right. It looks like it does > it, but it's just a hot mess of garbage. > > And %pK doesn't even work the way you claim it does. Not in the general > case, and only

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-12 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:59:30AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I'd rather make %pK act more like %p than have gratuitous differences. > > The feature that paranoid fol

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-11 Thread Kees Cook
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> I'd rather make %pK act more like %p than have gratuitous differences. The feature that paranoid folks currently depend on is getting a value entirely zeroed out with %pK

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-10 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > >> > >>> Perhaps it should have printed a fixed, non-zero value for non-zero > >>> pointers. > >> > >> I must leave this to the people who have a dog in that contest. ;-)

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >>> Perhaps it should have printed a fixed, non-zero value for non-zero >>> pointers. >> >> I must leave this to the people who have a dog in that contest. ;-) > > Since there is an ongoing discussion with security people near to %pK > an

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-10 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 02:52:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Paul E. McKenney > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:13:38PM +, David Laight wrote: > >> From: Paul E. McKenney > >> > Sent: 04 December 2017 13:42 > >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:32:30PM +

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-10 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 6:11 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:13:38PM +, David Laight wrote: >> From: Paul E. McKenney >> > Sent: 04 December 2017 13:42 >> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:32:30PM +, David Laight wrote: >> > > From: Paul E. McKenney >> > > > Sent: 01 Dec

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-04 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:13:38PM +, David Laight wrote: > From: Paul E. McKenney > > Sent: 04 December 2017 13:42 > > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:32:30PM +, David Laight wrote: > > > From: Paul E. McKenney > > > > Sent: 01 December 2017 20:09 > > > > > > > > Because %p prints "(null)" and

RE: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-04 Thread David Laight
From: Paul E. McKenney > Sent: 04 December 2017 13:42 > On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:32:30PM +, David Laight wrote: > > From: Paul E. McKenney > > > Sent: 01 December 2017 20:09 > > > > > > Because %p prints "(null)" and %pK prints "" or (on > > > 32-bit systems) "", this

Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-04 Thread Paul E. McKenney
On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:32:30PM +, David Laight wrote: > From: Paul E. McKenney > > Sent: 01 December 2017 20:09 > > > > Because %p prints "(null)" and %pK prints "" or (on > > 32-bit systems) "", this commit adjusts torture-test scripting > > accordingly. > > Surel

RE: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK

2017-12-04 Thread David Laight
From: Paul E. McKenney > Sent: 01 December 2017 20:09 > > Because %p prints "(null)" and %pK prints "" or (on > 32-bit systems) "", this commit adjusts torture-test scripting > accordingly. Surely NULL v not-NULL is one bit of info that the message needs to contain?