[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171205.153120.151025775956658954.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:31:20 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: geert@...ux-m68k.org
Cc: me@...in.cc, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, Jason@...c4.com, tytso@....edu,
keescook@...omium.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, tycho@...ho.ws,
william.c.roberts@...el.com, tj@...nel.org, Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, pmladek@...e.com, joe@...ches.com,
ijc@...lion.org.uk, sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
wilal.deacon@....com, rostedt@...dmis.org, cfries@...gle.com,
olorin@...gle.com, danielmicay@...il.com, tixxdz@...il.com,
rkrcmar@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
sfr@...b.auug.org.au, aryabinin@...tuozzo.com, glider@...gle.com,
dvyukov@...gle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 3/5] printk: hash addresses printed with %p
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:20:57 +0100
> Hi Tobin,
>
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> 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 are stale, instead of fixing every call lets hash the
>> address by default before printing. This will of course break some
>> users, forcing code printing needed addresses to be updated.
>>
>> Code that _really_ needs the address will soon be able to use the new
>> printk specifier %px to print the address.
>
>> --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
>> +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
>
>> +/* Maps a pointer to a 32 bit unique identifier. */
>> +static char *ptr_to_id(char *buf, char *end, void *ptr, struct printf_spec spec)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long hashval;
>> + const int default_width = 2 * sizeof(ptr);
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(!have_filled_random_ptr_key)) {
>> + spec.field_width = default_width;
>> + /* string length must be less than default_width */
>> + return string(buf, end, "(ptrval)", spec);
>> + }
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>> + hashval = (unsigned long)siphash_1u64((u64)ptr, &ptr_key);
>> + /*
>> + * Mask off the first 32 bits, this makes explicit that we have
>> + * modified the address (and 32 bits is plenty for a unique ID).
>> + */
>> + hashval = hashval & 0xffffffff;
>> +#else
>> + hashval = (unsigned long)siphash_1u32((u32)ptr, &ptr_key);
>> +#endif
>
> Would it make sense to keep the 3 lowest bits of the address?
>
> Currently printed pointers no longer have any correlation with the actual
> alignment in memory of the object, which is a typical cause of a class of bugs.
Yeah, this is driving people nuts who wonder why pointers are aligned
all weird now.
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.
