linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3][RESEND] add support for never printing hashed addresses

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]

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.