linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] add %pX specifier

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:16:55 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc:     "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
        <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>,
        "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
        Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Chris Fries <cfries@...gle.com>,
        Dave Weinstein <olorin@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>,
        Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] add %pX specifier

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> wrote:
>
> This patch is a softer version of Linus' suggestion because it does not change the behaviour of the
> %p specifier. I don't see the benefit in making such a breaking change without addressing the issue
> of %x (and I don't the balls to right now).

The thing is, this continues to have the exact same issue that %pK has
- because it is opt-in, effectively nobody will actually use it.

That's why I would suggest that if we do this way, we really change %p
and %pa to use the hashed value, to convert *everybody*. And then
people who have a good reason to actually expose the pointer have to
do the extra work and opt out.

                  Linus