From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 0/5] hash addresses printed with %p
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 15:15:26 +0900
Message-ID: <20171201061526.GA482@jagdpanzerIV>
References: <1511921105-3647-1-git-send-email-me@tobin.cc>
 <20171129152040.ed5b28c198093de8968aac9b@linux-foundation.org>
 <28ab447e24684c58a5e03af44edd6d5a@AcuMS.aculab.com>
 <20171130102638.GA434@jagdpanzerIV>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
        'Andrew Morton' <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <me@tobin.cc>,
        "kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com"
        <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@zx2c4.com>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
        "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@intel.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@protonmail.ch>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>, Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <c
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pf0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]:44301 "EHLO
        mail-pf0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750988AbdLAGPc (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 1 Dec 2017 01:15:32 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171130102638.GA434@jagdpanzerIV>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On (11/30/17 19:26), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (11/30/17 10:23), David Laight wrote:
> [..]
> > > Maybe I'm being thick, but...  if we're rendering these addresses
> > > unusable by hashing them, why not just print something like
> > > "<obscured>" in their place?  That loses the uniqueness thing but I
> > > wonder how valuable that is in practice?
> > 
> > My worry is that is you get a kernel 'oops' print with actual register
> > values you have no easy way of tying an address or address+offset to
> > the corresponding hash(address) printed elsewhere.
> 
> print the existing hash:pointer mappings in panic()? [if we can do that]

by this I meant
	"when oops_in_progress == 1 then print hash:pointer for %p,
	 not just hash".

	-ss