From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754948AbbBQMkY (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:40:24 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:43739 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752375AbbBQMkX (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Feb 2015 07:40:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:39:33 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Kees Cook , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML , live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM , "x86@kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86, kaslr: propagate base load address calculation Message-ID: <20150217123933.GC26165@pd.tnic> References: <20150217104443.GC9784@pd.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 01:21:20PM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > I don't have strong feelings either way. It seems slightly nicer > to have a predictable oops output format no matter the CONFIG_ > options and command-line contents, but if you feel like seeing the > 'Kernel offset: 0' in 'nokaslr' and !CONFIG_RANDOMIZE_BASE cases is > unnecessary noise, feel free to make this change to my patch. Well, wouldn't it be wrong to print this line if kaslr is disabled? Because of the ambiguity in that case: that line could mean either we randomized to 0 or kaslr is disabled but you can't know that from the "0" in there, right? -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. --