Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:14:21 -0700
From: Joe Perches <>
To: Ryan Mallon <>
Cc: Andrew Morton <>,, Jiri
 Kosina <>,, Dan Rosenberg
 <>, Kees Cook <>, Alexander
 Viro <>, "Eric W. Biederman"
 <>,  George Spelvin <>,
 <>,  ""
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

Your e-mail address:

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.