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
> > > "" in their place? That loses the uniqueness thing but I
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
> > > "" in their place? That loses the uniqueness thing but I
On 11/30/17, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> Currently there exist approximately 14 000 places
>> in the Kernel where addresses are being printed
>> using an unadorned %p.
>
> Some of them are printing userpace pointers,
> so audit is necessary anyway:
>
> show_timer:
>
On 11/30/17, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> Currently there exist approximately 14 000 places
>> in the Kernel where addresses are being printed
>> using an unadorned %p.
>
> Some of them are printing userpace pointers,
> so audit is necessary anyway:
>
> show_timer:
>seq_printf(m, "signal:
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
> > "" in their place? That loses the uniqueness thing but I
> > wonder how valuable that is in practice?
>
> My
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
> > "" in their place? That loses the uniqueness thing but I
> > wonder how valuable that is in practice?
>
> My
From: Andrew Morton
> Sent: 29 November 2017 23:21
> >
> > The added advantage of hashing %p is that security is now opt-out, if
> > you _really_ want the address you have to work a little harder and use
> > %px.
You need a system-wide opt-out that prints the actual values.
Otherwise developers
From: Andrew Morton
> Sent: 29 November 2017 23:21
> >
> > The added advantage of hashing %p is that security is now opt-out, if
> > you _really_ want the address you have to work a little harder and use
> > %px.
You need a system-wide opt-out that prints the actual values.
Otherwise developers
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 03:20:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:05:00 +1100 "Tobin C. Harding" wrote:
>
> > Currently there exist approximately 14 000 places in the Kernel where
> > addresses are being printed using an unadorned %p. This potentially
> >
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 03:20:40PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:05:00 +1100 "Tobin C. Harding" wrote:
>
> > Currently there exist approximately 14 000 places in the Kernel where
> > addresses are being printed using an unadorned %p. This potentially
> > leaks sensitive
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:05:00 +1100 "Tobin C. Harding" wrote:
> Currently there exist approximately 14 000 places in the Kernel where
> addresses are being printed using an unadorned %p. This potentially
> leaks sensitive information regarding the Kernel layout in memory. Many
> of
On Wed, 29 Nov 2017 13:05:00 +1100 "Tobin C. Harding" wrote:
> Currently there exist approximately 14 000 places in the Kernel where
> addresses are being printed using an unadorned %p. This potentially
> leaks sensitive information regarding the Kernel layout in memory. Many
> of these calls
Currently there exist approximately 14 000 places in the Kernel where
addresses are being printed using an unadorned %p. This potentially
leaks sensitive information regarding the Kernel layout in memory. Many
of these calls are stale, instead of fixing every call lets hash the
address by default
Currently there exist approximately 14 000 places in the Kernel where
addresses are being printed using an unadorned %p. This potentially
leaks sensitive information regarding the Kernel layout in memory. Many
of these calls are stale, instead of fixing every call lets hash the
address by default
14 matches
Mail list logo