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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1508119775.3619640.1139764440.2F1A81C9@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:09:35 +1100
From:   Tobin Harding <me@...in.cc>
To:     "Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     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>, 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 Sat, Oct 14, 2017, at 04:54, Roberts, William C wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linus971@...il.com [mailto:linus971@...il.com] On Behalf Of Linus
> > Torvalds
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:17 PM
> > To: Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc>
> > Cc: 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.
> 
> Yes we cannot make this opt in or there is really no point in doing it.
> %pK and mistakes
> got us here to this point. I see there is multiple threads, this getting
> really fun to follow.

The threading split is my fault. I have never worked on a patch series
with this many comments. How could I have gone about things differently
to prevent the thread separation? Should I have posted the second patch
set as a reply to the first (I did not because it was not a version 2). 
Further splitting occurred because I botched the `git send-email` and
sent only a cover-letter, this got some replies that lead to another
single patch (again it was quite different and seemed not to be a
version 2)? So we are left with three threads all discussing the same
changes. Is there anything one can do to rectify this position now?

thanks,
Tobin.