linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] doc: update 'unique identifiers'

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]

Message-ID: <20171204214440.GH21565@eros>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2017 08:44:40 +1100
From:   "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@...hat.com>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: update 'unique identifiers'

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:28:45PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> wrote:
> > Advice about what to use as a unique identifier is no longer valid since
> > patch series was merged to hash pointers printed with %p. We can use
> > this as a unique identifier now.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc>
> 
> I don't agree: %p should still not be encouraged. Exposing an
> identifier to userspace needs careful consideration, and atomics,
> idrs, etc, continue to be a good recommendation here, as far as I'm
> concerned.

Ok no worries, so these docs are valid and current as is? I have no
agenda with this patch, just attempting to keep the docs in line with
the code :)

thanks,
Tobin.