linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Correcting format specifier for printin 64 bit addresses

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20161130105052.GC2724@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Nov 2016 10:50:52 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>
Cc:     catalin.marinas@....com, james.morse@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sandeepa.s.prabhu@...il.com,
        labbott@...hat.com, shijie.huang@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ajeet.y@...sung.com, pankaj.m@...sung.com,
        Vaneet Narang <v.narang@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Correcting format specifier for printin 64
 bit addresses

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 01:33:56PM +0530, Maninder Singh wrote:
> This patch corrects format specifier for printing 64 bit addresses.
> 
> Before Patch
> ============
> [   68.251603] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000000
> [   68.251673] pgd = ffffffc013950000
> [   68.251782] [00000000] *pgd=0000000093e19003, *pud=0000000093e19003, *pmd=0000000000000000
> 
> After patch
> ===========
> [    8.565030] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000000
> [    8.565389] pgd = ffffffc013872000
> [    8.565553] [0000000000000000] *pgd=0000000093874003, *pud=0000000093874003, *pmd=0000000000000000
> 
> and same for user space fault.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vaneet Narang <v.narang@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@...sung.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

There are a bunch of these you haven't caught:

arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c:             pr_info_ratelimited("%s[%d]: bad frame in %s: pc=%08llx sp=%08llx\n",
arch/arm64/kernel/signal32.c:           pr_info_ratelimited("%s[%d]: bad frame in %s: pc=%08llx sp=%08llx\n",
arch/arm64/kernel/signal32.c:           pr_info_ratelimited("%s[%d]: bad frame in %s: pc=%08llx sp=%08llx\n",
arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c:      kvm_err("Unsupported guest CP%d access at: %08lx\n",
arch/arm64/kvm/trace.h: TP_printk("guest executed wf%c at: 0x%08lx",
arch/arm64/kvm/trace.h: TP_printk("HVC at 0x%08lx (r0: 0x%08lx, imm: 0x%lx)",
arch/arm64/kvm/trace.h: TP_printk("%s %s reg %d (0x%08llx)", __entry->fn,  __entry->is_write?"write to":"read from", __entry->reg, __entry->write_value)
arch/arm64/mm/fault.c:  pr_alert("[%08lx] *pgd=%016llx", addr, pgd_val(*pgd));
arch/arm64/mm/fault.c:  pr_alert("Unable to handle kernel %s at virtual address %08lx\n",
arch/arm64/mm/fault.c:          pr_info("%s[%d]: unhandled %s (%d) at 0x%08lx, esr 0x%03x\n",
arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:            pr_warn("fix_to_virt(FIX_BTMAP_BEGIN): %08lx\n",
arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c:            pr_warn("fix_to_virt(FIX_BTMAP_END):   %08lx\n",

so it would probably make sense to fix these to be consistent.

Will