Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 06 May 2017 11:48:36 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <>
To: Greg KH <>,,  Petr Mladek <>,
 Sergey Senozhatsky <>
Cc:, Catalin Marinas <>,
  Will Deacon <>, Steven Rostedt <>,
 William Roberts <>, Chris Fries
 <>, Dave Weinstein <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/6] lib: vsprintf: physical address
 kernel pointer filtering options

On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 21:07 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> From: Dave Weinstein <>
> Add the kptr_restrict setting of 4 which results in %pa and
> %p[rR] values being replaced by zeros.

Given that '%pa' is:
 * - 'a[pd]' For address types [p] phys_addr_t, [d] dma_addr_t and derivatives
 *           (default assumed to be phys_addr_t, passed by reference)

what is the thread model which hiding physical addresses from attackers
protects against? I can see why virtual addresses would be obviously
dangerous but physical addresses seem less obvious and I didn't see it
spelled out in any of the commit messages or added comments in the

I think a comment somewhere would be useful for people who are trying
to decide if they should use %pa vs %paP etc.


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.