linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] x86, kaslr: propagate base load address calculation

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]

Message-ID: <20150217123933.GC26165@pd.tnic>
Date:	Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:39:33 +0100
From:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
Cc:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, kaslr: propagate base load address calculation

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:21:20PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> I don't have strong feelings either way. It seems slightly nicer
> to have a predictable oops output format no matter the CONFIG_
> options and command-line contents, but if you feel like seeing the
> 'Kernel offset: 0' in 'nokaslr' and !CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE cases is
> unnecessary noise, feel free to make this change to my patch.

Well, wouldn't it be wrong to print this line if kaslr is disabled?
Because of the ambiguity in that case: that line could mean either we
randomized to 0 or kaslr is disabled but you can't know that from the
"0" in there, right?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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/