[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1522933485.21176.353.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 16:04:45 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
"Tobin C . Harding" <me@...in.cc>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/9] vsprintf: Consistent %pK handling for
kptr_restrict == 0
On Wed, 2018-04-04 at 10:58 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> restricted_pointer() pretends that it prints the address when
> kptr_restrict
> is set to zero. But it is never called in this situation. Instead,
> pointer() falls back to ptr_to_id() and hashes the pointer.
>
> This patch removes the potential confusion. klp_restrict is checked
> only
> in restricted_pointer().
>
> /* Maps a pointer to a 32 bit unique identifier. */
> -static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr, struct
> printf_spec spec)
> +static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end,
> + const void *ptr, struct printf_spec spec)
I don't think this change belongs to the patch.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists