RE: [RFC 00/06] printk: add more new kernel pointer filter options.

[Roberts, William C]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Senozhatsky [mailto:sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 6:38 PM
> To: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: kernel-hardening@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx>;
> Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>; Will
> Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>; Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>;
> Roberts, William C <william.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx>; Chris Fries
> <cfries@xxxxxxxxxx>; Dave Weinstein <olorin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [RFC 00/06] printk: add more new kernel pointer filter options.
> 
> Hello Greg,
> 
> On (05/05/17 21:06), Greg KH wrote:
> > Here's a short patch series from Chris Fries and Dave Weinstein that
> > implement some new restrictions when printing out kernel pointers, as
> > well as the ability to whitelist kernel pointers where needed.
> >
> > These patches are based on work from William Roberts, and also is
> > inspired by grsecurity's %pP to specifically whitelist a kernel
> > pointer, where it is always needed, like the last patch in the series
> > shows, in the UIO drivers (UIO requires that you know the address,
> > it's a hardware address, nothing wrong with seeing that...)
> >
> > I haven't done much to this patch series, only forward porting it from
> > an older kernel release (4.4) and a few minor tweaks.  It applies
> > cleanly on top of 4.11 as well as Linus's current development tree
> > (10502 patches into the 4.12-rc1 merge window).  I'm posting it now
> > for comments if anyone sees anything wrong with this approach
> 
> overall, I don't see anything wrong.
> 
> > or thinks the things that are being whitelisted should not be?
> 
> can't say for sure, sorry.
> 
> 	-ss

I almost missed this, none of the mail was delivered to my inbox...

Anyways, I am glad to see this revived and I don't have any
Comments besides thanks.