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 Advice about what to use as a unique identifier is no longer valid since 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
