netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] trace: print address if symbol not found

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171219042009.GK19604@eros>
Date:   Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:20:09 +1100
From:   "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] trace: print address if symbol not found

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:37:38PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 14:00:11 +1100
> "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc> wrote:
> 
> > I ran through these as outlined here for the new version (v4). This hits
> > the modified code but doesn't test symbol look up failure.
> 
> stacktrace shouldn't post non kernel values, unless there's a frame
> pointer that isn't handled by kallsyms.
> 
> As for the other two, we could probably force a failure, like:
> 
>  # echo 'hist:keys=hrtimer.sym' > \
>      events/timer/hrtimer_start/trigger
>  # cat events/timer/hrtimer_start/hist
> 
> And then just add sym-offset too.
>
> > I also configured kernel with 'Perform a startup test on ftrace' for
> > good luck.
> > 
> > Are you happy with this level of testing?
> 
> Can you try the above.

Did both and in both cases we get the addresses as hoped :)

thanks,
Tobin.