linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] trace_uprobe: Display correct offset in uprobe

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:   Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:01:04 +0530
From:   Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, me@...in.cc,
        Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace_uprobe: Display correct offset in uprobe_events



On 01/08/2018 10:49 AM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> * Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> [2018-01-06 11:12:46]:
>
>> Recently, how the pointers being printed with %p has been changed
>> by commit ad67b74d2469 ("printk: hash addresses printed with %p").
>> This is causing a regression while showing offset in the
>> uprobe_events file. Instead of %p, use %px to display offset.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
>> index 40592e7b3568..268029ae1be6 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c
>> @@ -608,7 +608,7 @@ static int probes_seq_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>>
>>  	/* Don't print "0x  (null)" when offset is 0 */
>>  	if (tu->offset) {
>> -		seq_printf(m, "0x%p", (void *)tu->offset);
>> +		seq_printf(m, "0x%px", (void *)tu->offset);
>>  	} else {
>>  		switch (sizeof(void *)) {
>>  		case 4:
> Looks good to me.  Did you consider %pK instead of %px?

Thanks Srikar,

Checked %pK. But I see same issue with that:

perf probe:
  Opening /sys/kernel/debug/tracing//uprobe_events write=1
  Writing event: p:probe_a/main /tmp/a.out:0x58c

cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/uprobe_events:
  p:probe_a/main /tmp/a.out:0x0000000014fd571e

> Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>