[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1381356861.2050.33.camel@joe-AO722>
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:14:21 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Ryan Mallon <rmallon@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, eldad@...refinery.com, Jiri
Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com, Dan Rosenberg
<dan.j.rosenberg@...il.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Alexander
Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, "Eric W. Biederman"
<ebiederm@...ssion.com>, George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com"
<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vsprintf: Check real user/group id for %pK
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 09:04 +1100, Ryan Mallon wrote:
> On 10/10/13 09:00, Joe Perches wrote:
[]
> > Move the interrupt tests and pK-error printk
> > into case 1:
> >
> > It's the only case where CAP_SYSLOG needs to be
> > tested so it doesn't need to be above the switch.
>
> Like I said, I think it is useful to do the pK-error check anyway. It is
> checking for internal kernel bugs, since if 'pK-error' ever gets
> printed, then some kernel code is doing the wrong thing.
I think you don't quite understand how kptr_restrict works.
If it's 0, then the ptr value is always emitted naturally.
if it's 2, then the ptr value is always emitted as 0.
> Therefore, I
> think it is useful to print it always (I would argue it even makes sense
> when kptr_restrict=0).
How? Maybe it's me that doesn't quite understand.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
