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 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 worr
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 wi
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 inf
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 are
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 b
