2023년 4월 3일 (월) 오후 9:53, Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>님이 작성:
>
> On Mon 2023-04-03 19:46:17, Jaewon Kim wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > I've just changed %09lx to %09pK on my driver code to hide the address, but I
> > faced compiler error. The %9pK without 0 worked.
>
> What exactly do you want to achieve, please?
Hello
Thank you for your comment.
I wanted to print phys_addr_t type value only when kptr_restrict sysctl is
allowed. So I thought I could use %pK for that purpose. And the physical
address is not that long. I wanted to make that length short like 9 hex.
>
> Note that printk() hashes pointers by default. It means that %p does not
> print the value but a hash based on the value.
>
> If you print the same pointer twice, you will see the same hash, so
> you know that the pointer is the same. But you do not see the address
> so that you could not use the value for a security attack.
>
> See Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst
>
> Anyway, the main question if it makes sense to print the pointer value
> at all. The address is not useful if it can't be compared with
> other pointers or if the data on the address could not be checked.
>
> > Is there restriction on %pK which does now allow %0 ? I've wondered whether I
> > did wrong or it is a printk problem.
> >
> > To show easily I tried to add pr_info("%09pK\n", nodemask); in page_alloc.c
> > Then here's what I did.
> >
> > $ ARCH=x86 make x86_64_defconfig ; make mm/page_alloc.o
> > #
> > # No change to .config
> > #
> > CALL scripts/checksyscalls.sh
> > DESCEND objtool
> > INSTALL libsubcmd_headers
> > CC mm/page_alloc.o
> > In file included from ./include/asm-generic/bug.h:22:0,
> > from ./arch/x86/include/asm/bug.h:87,
> > from ./include/linux/bug.h:5,
> > from ./include/linux/mmdebug.h:5,
> > from ./include/linux/mm.h:6,
> > from mm/page_alloc.c:19:
> > mm/page_alloc.c: In function ‘__alloc_pages’:
> > ./include/linux/kern_levels.h:5:18: error: '0' flag used with ‘%p’ gnu_printf format [-Werror=format=]
> > #define KERN_SOH "\001" /* ASCII Start Of Header */
>
> As Sergey already wrote. %p does not support any modification flags.
Okay, then we can't use %09pK. I've just wondered because %9pK works.
BR
Jaewon Kim
>
> Best Regards,
> Petr
