Re: [PATCH can-next v3] can: proc: remove pointers from CAN specific proc output

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>]

On 2026-10-16 12:37:06 [+0200], Oliver Hartkopp wrote:
> The proc content in /proc/net/can/ and /proc/net/can-bcm/ is intended to
> check the internal filter lists (af_can, can_raw) and the efficiency and
> functionality of can_bcm jobs. While exposing kernel addresses was
> acceptable when this code was written the times have changed and multiple
> attempts have been made to hash or remove such now sensitive data.
> 
> This patch removes the disclosure of pointers and instead provides the
> function names and sock inode numbers when available. When the function
> name can not be resolved (e.g. KALLSYMS=n or stripped module symbols)
> %ps would fall back to the raw text address. Therefore (unknown) is
> printed instead in this case. As there's no known tooling around the CAN
> specific proc output breaking the ABI with this rework creates no issue.
> 
> Suggested-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@hartkopp.net>

I am all fine with this \o/

> --- a/net/can/proc.c
> +++ b/net/can/proc.c
> @@ -189,30 +189,36 @@ static void can_print_rcvlist(struct seq_file *m, struct hlist_head *rx_list,
>  			      struct net_device *dev)
…
> +
> +		/* %ps falls back to the raw text address when the symbol
> +		 * can not be resolved (KALLSYMS=n, stripped module symbols)
> +		 */
> +		snprintf(symcheck, sizeof(symcheck), "%ps", r->func);
> +		if (strncmp(symcheck, "0x", 2))
> +			seq_printf(m, "  %ps\n", r->func);
> +		else
> +			seq_puts(m, "  (unknown)\n");

If you want to keep this because the bot said so, fine. I will let you
know once my side projects gets through
	https://lore.kernel.org/all/20261015-vsprintf_kallsym-v3-1-c175c27f38b7@linutronix.de/

;)

>  	}
>  }
>  

Sebastian