Re: [PATCH] lib/vsprintf: Validate sleepable context during restrictred pointer formatting

[Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>]

Added John and Sebastian into Cc.

On Wed 2026-03-18 09:48:06, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 12:41:23PM +0100, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > Depending on the system configuration, the restricted pointer formatting
> > might call into the security subsystem which might sleep.
> > As %pK is intended to be only used from read handlers of virtual files,
> > which always run in task context, this should never happen in practice.
> > However, developers have used %pK before from atomic context without
> > realizing this restriction. While all existing user of %pK through
> > printk() have been removed, new ones might be reintroduced accidentally
> > in the future.
> > 
> > Add a might_sleep(), so that misuse of %pK from atomic context is
> > detected right away.
> > 
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250113171731-dc10e3c1-da64-4af0-b767-7c7070468023@linutronix.de/
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20241217142032.55793-1-acarmina@redhat.com/
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@linutronix.de>
> > ---
> > This depends on commit 5886cc8f895b ("drm/msm/dpu: Don't use %pK through
> > printk (again)"), which was merged in v7.0-rc2.
> > ---
> >  lib/vsprintf.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/lib/vsprintf.c b/lib/vsprintf.c
> > index 800b8ac49f53..eb9dbb28fb9b 100644
> > --- a/lib/vsprintf.c
> > +++ b/lib/vsprintf.c
> > @@ -862,6 +862,9 @@ static noinline_for_stack
> >  char *restricted_pointer(char *buf, char *end, const void *ptr,
> >  			 struct printf_spec spec)
> >  {
> > +	/* Only usable from task context, The call to has_capability_noaudit() might sleep. */
> > +	might_sleep();
> > +
> 
> So might_sleep() is not actually the right thing to do here.
> Some callers use %pK under a spinlock, which fails the might_sleep() check.
> However this is fine to do, as has_capability_noaudit() also only takes a
> spinlock.

My understanding is that we want to simulate that we are going
to call a normal spin_lock() which might sleep in PREEMPT_RT.
So that we trigger the warning when %pK is used under
a raw_spin_lock.

It might likely be achieved by adding a "fake" spin_lock and might_lock().
I am not sure if there is an easier way by using just
a struct lockdep_map.

I am always a bit confused by the lockdep annotation.

> 
> >  	switch (kptr_restrict) {
> >  	case 0:
> >  		/* Handle as %p, hash and do _not_ leak addresses. */

Best Regards,
Petr