Could someone yell here, please? I convinced myself that hiding
unresolved pointers is the good thing to do here since a "wrong" pointer
would be seen in backtrace anyway.
Thread starts at
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
On 2026-08-27 12:24:13 [+0200], To Petr Mladek wrote:
> On 2026-08-26 18:21:12 [+0200], Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Adding Linus into Cc.
> >
> > On Fri 2026-08-21 17:26:14, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > > __sprint_symbol() is supposed to resolve the passed address to a symbol
> > > name. If the symbol can not be resolved it will print the actual pointer
> > > that was passed. The pointer policy is to not reveal actual pointer
> > > values. However for post-mortem analysis of crashes it is helpful to see
> > > the raw pointer if it is a corrupted pointer.
> > >
> > > Document why raw unresolved pointers are printed.
> >
> > > --- a/kernel/kallsyms.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/kallsyms.c
> > > @@ -482,8 +482,13 @@ static int __sprint_symbol(char *buffer, unsigned
> > > long address,
> > > address += symbol_offset;
> > > len = kallsyms_lookup_buildid(address, &size, &offset, &modname,
> > > &buildid,
> > > buffer);
> > > - if (!len)
> > > + if (!len) {
> > > + /*
> > > + * Print the raw pointer to allow post-mortem analysis of
> > > corrupted
> > > + * pointer in backtraces.
> >
> > This might be acceptable when the system is going to panic().
> > But is this formatting used only during panic?
>
> panic, bug, warning, stack backtrace, … everything using %p[sSB] where
> the symbol can not be resolved to an actual function.
>
> > > + */
> > > return sprintf(buffer, "0x%lx", address - symbol_offset);
> >
> > I expected that we would replace this by "%p" so that the pointer got
> > hashed by default. After all, we suggest to use %ps because it should
> > not leak pointers.
> >
> > Hmm, I see %ps or %pS used by many interfaces, like procfs, sysfs,
> > ftrace. Many of them are accessible only by root. Maybe, people expect
> > to see the valid pointers.
>
> For %p[sS] it should something in .text area either kernel or module. If
> it can not be resolved then something went south. This can be either a
> legitime case like in commit b86280aa48b67 ("kernel/kallsyms.c: fix %pB
> when there's no symbol at the address") or the IP gets invalid due to
> $reason and the system panics. Making this %p would mean you have to use
> unhashed pointers just to see the unresolved pointer in the crash case.
>
> > But we do not want to repeate the %pK eperience here. We could not
> > reliably check the access rights of the vsprintf() caller.
> > So, we should agree on the default behavior which does not
> > depend on the caller.
>
> We don't want that, yes.
>
> > And I think that we want to reduce the risk of leaking.
> > So, I would use %p here.
> >
> > If some callers really want to always print the real pointer when
> > the symbol is not resolved then we might add some modifier for
> > this, e.g. %p[SsB][R][p], where p would mean plain. But I am
> > not sure if we really want it.
>
> That sounds like too much. The general policy should be what we want. So
> if the IP gets to be entire nonsense I get
>
> | BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: 0000000012345678
>
> 11:52 [2/1960]
> | #PF: supervisor instruction fetch in kernel mode
> | #PF: error_code(0x0010) - not-present page
> | PGD 0 P4D 0
> | Oops: Oops: 0010 [#1] SMP NOPTI
> | CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 1915 Comm: kworker/6:2 Tainted: G W
> 7.2.0+ #72 PREEMPT_{RT,(lazy)}
> | Tainted: [W]=WARN
> | Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 2026.05-2
> 08/06/2026
> | Workqueue: events inv_func
> | RIP: 0010:unresolved
>
> The %pS that did get resolved (instead 0000000012345678).
>
> | Code: Unable to access opcode bytes at 0x1234564e.
> | RSP: 0018:ffffc900024c7e78 EFLAGS: 00010286
> | RAX: ffffffff812691a0 RBX: ffff8881080f2780 RCX: 0000000000000006
> | RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000073746e657665 RDI: 0000000012345678
> | RBP: ffff8881000ada00 R08: 8080808080808080 R09: ffff8881080f2808
> | R10: ffff8881000964c0 R11: fefefefefefefeff R12: ffff88817bdaa500
> | R13: ffff8881000ada05 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffffffff8280e000
> | FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8881f8c09000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> | CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> | CR2: 0000000012345678 CR3: 000000010858d000 CR4: 00000000003506f0
>
> and on x86 we have CR2
>
> | Call Trace:
> | <TASK>
> | ? process_one_work+0x174/0x350
> …
>
> So given that "BUG:" here would print that information, the RIP %pS line
> might now have to.
> If I use a data pointer instead:
> | kernel tried to execute NX-protected page - exploit attempt? (uid: 0)
> | BUG: unable to handle page fault for address: ffffffff8280e000
> | #PF: supervisor instruction fetch in kernel mode
> | #PF: error_code(0x0011) - permissions violation
> | PGD 3049067 P4D 3049067 PUD 304a063 PMD 80000000030001e3
> | Oops: Oops: 0011 [#1] SMP NOPTI
> | CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 1731 Comm: kworker/6:2 Tainted: G W
> 7.2.0+ #73 PREEMPT_{RT,(lazy)}
> | Tainted: [W]=WARN
> | Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 2026.05-2
> 08/06/2026
> | Workqueue: events inv_func
> | RIP: 0010:unresolved
> | Code: 00 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 66
> 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 <00> 00 40 03 00 00
> 00 00 08 e0 80 82 ff ff ff ff 08 e0 80 82 ff ff
> | RSP: 0018:ffffc90001fc3e78 EFLAGS: 00010286
> | RAX: ffffffff812691a0 RBX: ffff88810364e240 RCX: 0000000000000006
> | RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000073746e657665 RDI: ffffffff8280e000
> | RBP: ffff8881000ada00 R08: 8080808080808080 R09: ffff88810364e2c8
> | R10: ffff8881000964c0 R11: fefefefefefefeff R12: ffff88817bdaa500
> | R13: ffff8881000ada05 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffffffff8280e000
> | FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8881f8c09000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> | CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> | CR2: ffffffff8280e000 CR3: 0000000100ac6000 CR4: 00000000003506f0
> | Call Trace:
> | <TASK>
> | ? process_one_work+0x174/0x350
>
> given that, we could go back to (unknown) instead in the hashed case
> instead of printing the pointer. I see the same kind of output for
> arm64.
> The only question would if that is enough for stack trace. But if so, I
> would indeed suggest to replace it with "(unknown)" as I already had in
> v1.
>
> > > + }
> > >
> > > offset -= symbol_offset;
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Petr
Sebastian
