From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754997AbdJRGEM (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:04:12 -0400 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:54009 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751069AbdJRGEL (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Oct 2017 02:04:11 -0400 X-ME-Sender: Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 17:04:06 +1100 From: "Tobin C. Harding" To: Sergey Senozhatsky Cc: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, Linus Torvalds , Kees Cook , Paolo Bonzini , Tycho Andersen , "Roberts, William C" , Tejun Heo , Jordan Glover , Greg KH , Petr Mladek , Joe Perches , Ian Campbell , Sergey Senozhatsky , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Steven Rostedt , Chris Fries , Dave Weinstein , Daniel Micay , Djalal Harouni , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] printk: hash addresses printed with %p Message-ID: <20171018060406.GA28753@eros> References: <1508300515-28824-1-git-send-email-me@tobin.cc> <20171018054431.GA597@jagdpanzerIV> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20171018054431.GA597@jagdpanzerIV> X-Mailer: Mutt 1.5.24 (2015-08-30) User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:44:31PM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (10/18/17 15:21), Tobin C. Harding wrote: > [..] > > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c > > index 86c3385b9eb3..4609738cd2cd 100644 > > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c > > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c > > @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > +#include > > #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK > > #include > > #endif > > @@ -1591,6 +1593,70 @@ char *device_node_string(char *buf, char *end, struct device_node *dn, > > return widen_string(buf, buf - buf_start, end, spec); > > } > > > > +/* protects ptr_secret and have_key */ > > +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(key_lock); > > +static siphash_key_t ptr_secret __read_mostly; > > +static atomic_t have_key = ATOMIC_INIT(0); > > + > > +static int initialize_ptr_secret(void) > > +{ > > + spin_lock(&key_lock); > > + if (atomic_read(&have_key) == 1) > > + goto unlock; > > + > > + get_random_bytes(&ptr_secret, sizeof(ptr_secret)); > > + atomic_set(&have_key, 1); > > + > > +unlock: > > + spin_unlock(&key_lock); > > + return 0; > > +} > > is this spinlock legal? what happens if we are getting interrupted by NMI? I think we can do without the spinlock. I think I was already told that when I tried to put it [some where else] in v1. It's fun failing in public ;) > printk() > vprintk_emit() > vscnprintf() > pointer() > ptr_to_id() > initialize_ptr_secret() > spin_lock(&key_lock) > > ----> NMI > > printk() > printk_safe_log_store() > vscnprintf() > pointer() > ptr_to_id() > initialize_ptr_secret() > spin_lock(&key_lock) <<<< > > > or am I completely misreading the patch? sorry if so. > > -ss thanks, Tobin.