From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA40C433DB for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685C564FA1 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:59:27 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 685C564FA1 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B3CF26B0006; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:59:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id AEDC56B006C; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:59:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A03B56B006E; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:59:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0189.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.189]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B9756B0006 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 16:59:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55FC93638 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:59:26 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77781952332.06.fowl94_5f0d191275df Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8801004E969 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:59:26 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: fowl94_5f0d191275df X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2579 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf32.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:59:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 227A464F8C; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 21:59:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1612475964; bh=j/3APdsf1wIq6kaIz46332EwR6+YXppcN/WPCOjUHiI=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=cpbXz0LbHwfXjX9aewuwsYc4Bu9hfj2eU8ez7JGqUIoJ7cppdMUGiX3ATqhq/+yBD oRcwcbVCCjZKc2Z+u0/vLcqJRINJl1+j4+sOeVv6yE+TxMPip8cDuBg7r9QXci5Kx4 KhszjV0jkbd8odYidjW5zC9HBKqWJCN+fMyqe9syWmTyWdZiijU+fq8AFSKflXkF0n yNiAKA99YFTgCB3XnSc5dUZEqm5TEoHMAb1SqxlZsg1PPJA99UGGDUfJ7H/zyUeBhd dFUGUSSLydLuuLAa53gbor23h7RsoBv5TQ8R5Ub46oIbHvCBWHykdr2JJmcgp8P0m3 vDVGyXqKqSTgw== Subject: Re: [PATCH] lib/vsprintf: make-printk-non-secret printks all addresses as unhashed To: Pavel Machek , Steven Rostedt Cc: Petr Mladek , Sergey Senozhatsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, roman.fietze@magna.com, keescook@chromium.org, john.ogness@linutronix.de, akinobu.mita@gmail.com References: <20210202201846.716915-1-timur@kernel.org> <20210204204835.GA7529@amd> <20210204155423.2864bf4f@gandalf.local.home> <20210204214944.GA13103@amd> From: Timur Tabi Message-ID: <873d7e08-7a70-a1a3-f486-882d1d515965@kernel.org> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:59:21 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210204214944.GA13103@amd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2/4/21 3:49 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > This machine is insecure. Yet I don't see ascii-art *** all around.. > > "Kernel memory addresses are exposed, which is bad for security." I'll use whatever wording everyone can agree on, but I really don't see much difference between "which may compromise security on your system" and "which is bad for security". "may compromise" doesn't see any more alarmist than "bad". Frankly, "bad" is a very generic term. I think the reason behind the large banner has less to do how insecure the system is, and more about making sure vendors and sysadmins don't enable it by default everywhere.