[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:16:55 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc: "kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ker.com>,
"Roberts, William C" <william.c.roberts@...el.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jordan Glover <Golden_Miller83@...tonmail.ch>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, Ian Campbell <ijc@...lion.org.uk>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Chris Fries <cfries@...gle.com>, Dave Weinstein <olorin@...gle.com>,
Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>, Djalal Harouni <tixxdz@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] add %pX specifier
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> wrote:
>
> This patch is a softer version of Linus' suggestion because it does not change the behaviour of the
> %p specifier. I don't see the benefit in making such a breaking change without addressing the issue
> of %x (and I don't the balls to right now).
The thing is, this continues to have the exact same issue that %pK has
- because it is opt-in, effectively nobody will actually use it.
That's why I would suggest that if we do this way, we really change %p
and %pa to use the hashed value, to convert *everybody*. And then
people who have a good reason to actually expose the pointer have to
do the extra work and opt out.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
