From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Rosenberg Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] kptr_restrict for hiding kernel pointers Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 12:17:59 -0500 Message-ID: <1293038279.9820.250.camel@dan> References: <1293037246.9820.236.camel@dan> <20101222171307.GA25611@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, tgraf@infradead.org, eugeneteo@kernel.org, kees.cook@canonical.com, davem@davemloft.net, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, akpm@linux-foundation.org, eparis@parisplace.org To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101222171307.GA25611@elte.hu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 18:13 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Dan Rosenberg wrote: > > > + case 'K': > > + /* > > + * %pK cannot be used in IRQ context because its test > > + * for CAP_SYSLOG would be meaningless. > > + */ > > + if (in_irq() || in_serving_softirq() || in_nmi()) > > + WARN_ONCE(1, "%%pK used in interrupt context.\n"); > > Hm, that bit looks possibly broken - some useful warning in irq context could print > a pointer into the syslog and this would generate a second warning? That probably > would crash as it recurses back into the printk code? > The double "%%" acts as an escape and simply prints "%" rather than treating it as a format specifier. > Instead a warning could be inserted into the generated output instead, for example > 'pK-error' (carefully staying within pointer length limits). > > Also, it would be nice to see a couple of actual %pK usage sites submitted as well - > instead of this pure infrastructure patch. > I did this separately so that any arguments about individual usage didn't sink the whole ship. Don't worry, you'll get your usage sites very soon. :) -Dan