linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 11 Feb 2017 01:32:39 +0000
From:   "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>
To:     Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "apw@...onical.com" <apw@...onical.com>
CC:     "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] checkpatch: add warning on %pk instead of %pK usage

<snip>
> > By "normal" I'm referring to things that call into pointer(), just
> > casually looking I see bstr_printf vsnprintf kvasprintf, which would
> > be easy enough to add
> >
> > > What do you think is missing?  sn?printf ? That's easy to add.
> >
> > The problem starts to get hairy when we think of how often folks roll
> > their own logging macros (see some small sampling at the end).
> >
> > I think we would want to add DEBUG DBG and sn?printf and maybe
> > consider dropping the \b on the regex so it's a bit more matchy but
> > still shouldn't end up matching on any ASM as you pointed out in the V2 nack.
> >
> > Ill break this down into:
> > 1. the patch as I know you'll take it, as you wrote it :-P 2. Adding
> > to the logging macros 3. exploring making it less matchy

-Kees and Andrew they likely don't care about the rest of this...

I have been working up a regex (I suck at these) to match C functions that have an invalid
%p format string and take arguments:
http://www.regexr.com/3f92k

This could be a way to get better coverage in a more generic approach, thoughts?