Re: ptrval hiding -- first kernel messages look rather "interesting"

From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Mon Jun 04 2018 - 18:39:21 EST


On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 12:31:44 +0200
Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> v4.17 on n900:
>
> [ 0.000000] Virtual kernel memory layout:
> [ 0.000000] vector : 0xffff0000 - 0xffff1000 ( 4 kB)
> [ 0.000000] fixmap : 0xffc00000 - 0xfff00000 (3072 kB)
> [ 0.000000] vmalloc : 0xd0000000 - 0xff800000 ( 760 MB)
> [ 0.000000] lowmem : 0xc0000000 - 0xcff00000 ( 255 MB)
> [ 0.000000] pkmap : 0xbfe00000 - 0xc0000000 ( 2 MB)
> [ 0.000000] modules : 0xbf000000 - 0xbfe00000 ( 14 MB)

Looks like the above is pointer values. Grant it, they are dynamic, but
still.


> [ 0.000000] .text : 0x(ptrval) - 0x(ptrval) (8160 kB)
> [ 0.000000] .init : 0x(ptrval) - 0x(ptrval) (1024 kB)
> [ 0.000000] .data : 0x(ptrval) - 0x(ptrval) ( 309 kB)
> [ 0.000000] .bss : 0x(ptrval) - 0x(ptrval) ( 333 kB)
> [ 0.000000] NR_IRQS: 16, nr_irqs: 16, preallocated irqs: 16
>
> I mean -- security is nice, but perhaps we should adjust the messages
> so this does not look like we are making fun of the user?

Hmm, do we hash even when the kernel isn't relocatable? Seems rather
pointless if a kernel will always load in the same memory locations to
hash the pointer values that address them.

-- Steve