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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1523110098.21176.409.camel@linux.intel.com> Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2018 17:08:18 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, 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 Thu, 2018-04-05 at 16:46 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2018-04-05 16:04:45, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > 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. > > The const should have been there from the beginning. I have found it > because this patch added a call to ptr_to_id() which had the const > and compiler warned about cast problems. So, why not to do a separate patch with clear intention? > IMHO, it is rather cosmetic change. >From my experience I'm afraid of cosmetic changes in the patches which might focus out attention on real fix. -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists