On 2/5/21 4:59 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
Thanks a lot. Should this also affect %pK though? IIUC, there's currently no way to achieve non-mangled %pK in all cases, even with the most permissive kptr_restrict=1 setting: - in IRQ, there's "pK-error" instead - in a context of non-CAP_SYSLOG process, nulls are printed
Hmmm.. I thought %pK prints an unhashed pointer when the user is root, at least in situations where the user can be known (e.g. during an ioctl call).
Yes, neither should matter if %pK were only used for prints that generate content of some kind of /proc file read by a CAP_SYSLOG process, but that doesn't seem to be the case and there are %pK used for printing to dmesg too...
I thought about that. On one hand, people who use %pK probably really wanted a hashed pointer printed. On the other hand, I agree that %pK should not be used for dmesg prints.
I get the feeling that some (most?) people who use %pK don't really understand how it's supposed to be used.
I can extend make-printk-non-secret to %pK if everyone agrees.
