On 2018-04-04 10:58, Petr Mladek wrote:
> diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> index 3551b7957d9e..1a080a75a825 100644
> --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> @@ -599,12 +599,46 @@ char *__string(char *buf, char *end, const char *s,
> struct printf_spec spec)
> return widen_string(buf, len, end, spec);
> }
>
> + /*
> + * This is not a fool-proof test. 99% of the time that this will fault is
> + * due to a bad pointer, not one that crosses into bad memory. Just test
> + * the address to make sure it doesn't fault due to a poorly added printk
> + * during debugging.
> + */
> +static const char *check_pointer_access(const void *ptr)
> +{
> + char byte;
> +
> + if (!ptr)
> + return "(null)";
> +
> + if (probe_kernel_address(ptr, byte))
> + return "(efault)";
> +
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +
> +static bool valid_pointer_access(char **buf, char *end, const void *ptr,
> + struct printf_spec spec)
> +{
> + const char *err_msg;
> +
> + err_msg = check_pointer_access(ptr);
> + if (err_msg) {
> + *buf = __string(*buf, end, err_msg, spec);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static noinline_for_stack
> char *string(char *buf, char *end, const char *s,
> struct printf_spec spec)
> {
> - if ((unsigned long)s < PAGE_SIZE)
> - s = "(null)";
> + if (!valid_pointer_access(&buf, end, s, spec))
> + return buf;
>
> return __string(buf, end, s, spec);
> }
Obviously, if you do add a WARN to the check_pointer_access (and please
do), that somehow needs to be suppressed for the "%s", NULL and "%s",
ZEROPTR cases, which are grandfathered in and I think is relied upon in
some places. It should be as simple as keeping the < PAGE_SIZE check
and do "else if (!valid...())".
Rasmus
