linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

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: <1511988840.19952.76.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 12:54:00 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] hash addresses printed with %p

On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 11:39 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > What I didn't realize until after pulling this and testing, is that it
> > completely breaks '%pK'.
> > 
> > We've marked various sensitive pointers with %pK, but that is now
> > _less_ secure than %p is, since it doesn't do the hashing because of
> > how you refactored the %pK code out of 'pointer()' into its own
> > function.
> > 
> > So now %pK ends up using the plain "number()" function. Reading
> > through the series I hadn't noticed that the refactoring ended up
> > messing with that.
> > 
> > I'll fix it up somehow.
> 
> I ended up just doing this:
> 
>             case 'K':
>     +               if (!kptr_restrict)
>     +                       break;
>                     return restricted_pointer(buf, end, ptr, spec);
> 
> which basically says that "if kptr_restrict isn't set, %pK is the same as %p".
> 
> Now, I feel that we should probably get rid of 'restricted_pointer()'
> entirely, since now the regular '%p' is arguably safer than '%pK' is,
> but I also didn't want to mess with the case that I have never used
> and that most distros don't seem to set.
> 
> Alternatively, we might make the 'K' behavior of clearing the pointer
> be in addition to the other flags, so that you could do '%pxK' and get
> the old %pK behavior. But since I am not a huge fan of %pK to begin
> with, I can't find it in myself to care too much.
> 
> So I'll leave that for Kees & co to decide on. Comments?

I'd prefer a global sed of '%pK' to '%pxK' and remove '%pK' altogether