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 <m...@tobin.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 <m...@tobin.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 Advice about what to use as a unique identifier is no longer valid since 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 <m...@tobin.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? thanks, Tobin.
