linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] slub: Force on no_hash_pointers when slub

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: <CAE-0n50PogTpc8G9DR23DnX2K2pkvz-1vrO+iNAFOkhrzAOong@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 May 2021 15:27:37 -0400
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] slub: Force on no_hash_pointers when slub_debug is enabled

Quoting Petr Mladek (2021-05-26 06:47:23)
> On Wed 2021-05-26 12:48:47, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 5/26/21 4:56 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Obscuring the pointers that slub shows when debugging makes for some
> > > confusing slub debug messages:
> > >
> > >  Padding overwritten. 0x0000000079f0674a-0x000000000d4dce17
> > >
> > > I opted for extern because I guess we don't want to advertise
> > > no_hash_pointers_enable() in some sort of header file? It can be put in
> > > a header file
> >
> > Hm looks like the bots disagree. I suppose a declaration right above definition
> > in lib/vsprintf.c would silence them, but I'll leave it to printk maintainers if
> > they would prefer that way or traditionally
> > include/linux/kernel.h
>
> I slightly prefer to put it into kernel.h. I expect that some more
> debugging facilities would want to enable this in the future.
> But I would accept even the "ugly" declaration in vsprintf.c.

Ok no problem. Would printk.h be more appropriate?