[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1293038279.9820.250.camel@dan>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:17:59 -0500
From: Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, tgraf@...radead.org, eugeneteo@...nel.org,
kees.cook@...onical.com, davem@...emloft.net,
a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
eparis@...isplace.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 18:13 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Dan Rosenberg <drosenberg@...curity.com> wrote:
>
> > + case 'K':
> > + /*
> > + * %pK cannot be used in IRQ context because its test
> > + * for CAP_SYSLOG would be meaningless.
> > + */
> > + if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq() || in_nmi())
> > + WARN_ONCE(1, "%%pK used in interrupt context.\n");
>
> Hm, that bit looks possibly broken - some useful warning in irq context could print
> a pointer into the syslog and this would generate a second warning? That probably
> would crash as it recurses back into the printk code?
>
The double "%%" acts as an escape and simply prints "%" rather than
treating it as a format specifier.
> Instead a warning could be inserted into the generated output instead, for example
> 'pK-error' (carefully staying within pointer length limits).
>
> Also, it would be nice to see a couple of actual %pK usage sites submitted as well -
> instead of this pure infrastructure patch.
>
I did this separately so that any arguments about individual usage
didn't sink the whole ship. Don't worry, you'll get your usage sites
very soon. :)
-Dan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists