[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKkVuoOa+Uxs0Mho+QUUbHEe4kWBEQ3b=5hDSvfY0BEwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 13:51:42 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
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 4, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> wrote:
> 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 Advice about what to use as a unique identifier is no longer valid since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 :)
I think a section could be added/updated discussing leaks and %p (in
that it is hashing now), that would be quite welcome!
I do, probably need to go through this document and update a few things.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists