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

[Kees Cook]

On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> 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@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 Advice about what to use as a unique identifier is no longer valid since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.
>
> 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