linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 08/11] vsprintf: Factor out %pO handler as kobject

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: <1524668476.21176.561.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 18:01:16 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "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 v5 08/11] vsprintf: Factor out %pO handler as
 kobject_string()

On Wed, 2018-04-25 at 13:12 +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> Move code from the long pointer() function. We are going to add a
> check for
> the access to the address that will make it even more complicated.
> 
> Also it is better to warn about unknown specifier instead of falling
> back to the %p behavior. It will help people to understand what is
> going wrong. They expect some device node names and not a pointer
> in this situation.
> 
> In fact, this avoids leaking the address when invalid %pO format
> specifier is used. The old code fallen back to printing the
> non-hashed value.
> 

> +static char *kobject_string(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr,
> +			    struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)

Do we need noinline_for_stack annotation? (Same question applies to
patch 7)

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy