diff options
| author | Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com> | 2018-04-10 16:33:06 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> | 2018-04-11 10:28:35 -0700 |
| commit | 68c1f08203f2b06b3b888229b1524cfbfe51660d (patch) | |
| tree | bea95dca78b080042951cb038efeb6a48622c060 /lib/list_debug.c | |
| parent | 317506009216f5103e185fe626d61361a899909d (diff) | |
| download | linux-stable-68c1f08203f2b06b3b888229b1524cfbfe51660d.tar.gz linux-stable-68c1f08203f2b06b3b888229b1524cfbfe51660d.tar.bz2 linux-stable-68c1f08203f2b06b3b888229b1524cfbfe51660d.zip | |
lib/list_debug.c: print unmangled addresses
The entire point of printing the pointers in list_debug is to see if
there's any useful information in them (eg poison values, ASCII, etc);
obscuring them to see if they compare equal makes them much less useful.
If an attacker can force this message to be printed, we've already lost.
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180401223237.GV13332@bombadil.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
Reviewed-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@gmail.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'lib/list_debug.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | lib/list_debug.c | 14 |
1 files changed, 7 insertions, 7 deletions
diff --git a/lib/list_debug.c b/lib/list_debug.c index a34db8d27667..5d5424b51b74 100644 --- a/lib/list_debug.c +++ b/lib/list_debug.c @@ -21,13 +21,13 @@ bool __list_add_valid(struct list_head *new, struct list_head *prev, struct list_head *next) { if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != prev, - "list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (%p), but was %p. (next=%p).\n", + "list_add corruption. next->prev should be prev (%px), but was %px. (next=%px).\n", prev, next->prev, next) || CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != next, - "list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (%p), but was %p. (prev=%p).\n", + "list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (%px), but was %px. (prev=%px).\n", next, prev->next, prev) || CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(new == prev || new == next, - "list_add double add: new=%p, prev=%p, next=%p.\n", + "list_add double add: new=%px, prev=%px, next=%px.\n", new, prev, next)) return false; @@ -43,16 +43,16 @@ bool __list_del_entry_valid(struct list_head *entry) next = entry->next; if (CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next == LIST_POISON1, - "list_del corruption, %p->next is LIST_POISON1 (%p)\n", + "list_del corruption, %px->next is LIST_POISON1 (%px)\n", entry, LIST_POISON1) || CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev == LIST_POISON2, - "list_del corruption, %p->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%p)\n", + "list_del corruption, %px->prev is LIST_POISON2 (%px)\n", entry, LIST_POISON2) || CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(prev->next != entry, - "list_del corruption. prev->next should be %p, but was %p\n", + "list_del corruption. prev->next should be %px, but was %px\n", entry, prev->next) || CHECK_DATA_CORRUPTION(next->prev != entry, - "list_del corruption. next->prev should be %p, but was %p\n", + "list_del corruption. next->prev should be %px, but was %px\n", entry, next->prev)) return false; |