Re: [PATCH] doc: update 'unique identifiers'

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxx> 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 Advice about what to use as a unique identifier is no longer valid since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@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> 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