[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171210214753.GM7829@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:47:53 -0800
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
"jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>,
"dipankar@...ibm.com" <dipankar@...ibm.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"josh@...htriplett.org" <josh@...htriplett.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>,
"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift
from %p to %pK
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:52 AM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Perhaps it should have printed a fixed, non-zero value for non-zero
> >>> pointers.
> >>
> >> I must leave this to the people who have a dog in that contest. ;-)
> >
> > Since there is an ongoing discussion with security people near to %pK
> > and alike, I added Kees and Linus to Cc list.
> >
> > The proposed change can be done easily, though I have no knowledge
> > about possible implications.
>
> I'd rather make %pK act more like %p than have gratuitous differences.
>
> I also think %pK is kind of pointless in general. It has not been a
> big success, and the whole "root or not" is kind of nasty anyway. Root
> in a container? Things like that.
>
> So I think that if people worry about leaking pointers, they should
> primarily go for:
>
> - just use %p and now get the hashed value
>
> - if the hashed value is pointless, ask yourself whether the pointer
> itself is important. Maybe it should be removed?
>
> - as a last option, if you really think the true pointer value is
> important, why is root so special, and maybe you should use %px and
> make sure you have proper sensible permissions.
>
> ..and %pK just isn't really the answer in any of those cases.
My main use case is comparing pointer values directly, for example,
in the console log against those in event-trace output. So if those
are hashed the same way, I wouldn't even notice.
I very rarely need to compute offsets, but I thought that the low-order
bits were excluded from the hash to make this work straightforwardly in
the common case. Of course, computing offsets could be a problem for
larger structures, by my reaction to that would be to make the kernel
do the offset computation for me as needed.
So it looks like I should drop the three patches in my tree that convert
%p to %pK.
Any objections?
Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists