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: <bfb425fb-0254-c1e3-62b3-d55a7cbb46ae@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 10 Feb 2021 11:21:52 -0600
From:   Timur Tabi <timur@...nel.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        roman.fietze@...na.com, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
        akinobu.mita@...il.com, glider@...gle.com,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed
 addresses



On 2/10/21 10:46 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Now the question is, why do you need the unhashed pointer?
> 
> Currently, the instruction pointer is what is fine right? You get the
> a function and its offset. If there's something that is needed, perhaps we
> should look at how to fix that, instead of just unhashing all pointers by
> default.

The original version of this patch only fixed print_hex_dump(), because 
hashed addresses didn't make any sense for that.  Each address is 
incremented by 16 or 32, but since they were all hashed, they may as 
well have been random numbers.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ