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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20171212160831.GZ7829@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 08:08:31 -0800 From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>, "jiangshanlai@...il.com" <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, "dipankar@...ibm.com" <dipankar@...ibm.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, "josh@...htriplett.org" <josh@...htriplett.org>, "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>, "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>, "edumazet@...gle.com" <edumazet@...gle.com>, "fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>, "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] torture: Prepare scripting for shift from %p to %pK On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 11:59:30AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Paul E. McKenney > <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 12:39:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > >> I'd rather make %pK act more like %p than have gratuitous differences. > > The feature that paranoid folks currently depend on is getting a value > entirely zeroed out with %pK (which is the least possible info leak > risk). The hashed %p is almost just as good except that identical > hashes are still usable to confirm matching values (but the cases > where this would be useful to an attacker are hopefully approaching > zero). > > > So it looks like I should drop the three patches in my tree that convert > > %p to %pK. > > > > Any objections? > > Sounds good. If they're still useful when hashed, keep the %p. If you > want to remove them because they're sensitive, just remove them > instead of adding new %pK users. OK, I have dropped those three patches. Thanx, Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists