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

Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKJC+yQVxiW_2EZGR34EwOFSCenGQpSv11ZySboKMhnLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Dec 2017 17:25:30 -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 3:39 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 01:51:42PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
>> 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 Advice about what to use as a unique identifier is no longer valid since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.
>
> How about I do whatever generates the least amount of work for you. Is
> it easier if I add the %p stuff for you to review or is it easier to
> just leave it for you to do in your own time?

If you can write a section on %p leaks, that would be great!

I can clean up other things as work on top of that.

Thanks!

-Kees


>
> thanks,
> Tobin.



-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security