Re: RFC: introduce "K" flag for printf, similar to %pK
From: Joe Perches
Date: Tue Jan 25 2011 - 12:41:19 EST
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 09:28 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 06:17:04PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 18:03 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > In the interests of hiding kernel addresses from userspace (without
> > > messing with file permissions), I want to use %pK for /proc/kallsyms and
> > > /proc/modules, but this results in changing several %x's to %p's. The
> > > primary side-effects is that some legitimately "0" value things in
> > > /proc/kallsyms turn into "(null)".
> > Another option would be to allow '0' for
> > kernel pointers.
> But then this changes the behavior of %p where (null) is expected. (i.e.
> when switching from %p to %pK.)
If you really want no change to any existing cases,
change it to "%pk" and a new case label.
> I'm personally fine with that, as I suspect anything parsing the output
> that can handle finding "(null)" will be fine with "0" too. But the other
> way around, not so much. :)
Maybe there's a case where somebody changed a kernel pointer
from %p to %pK that demands "(null)", but I can't think of one.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/