[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: + syscalls-x86-add-__nr_kcmp-syscall-v8.patch added to -mm tree
    On 04/10, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    > On 04/10/2012 04:08 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > >
    > > OK, since this is discussed again...
    > >
    > > Can this comment can also explain why do we obfuscate the pointers
    > > by type? I mean, I don't really understand why the one-dimensional
    > > cookies[2] is "not enough" from security pov.
    > Because it's cheap. "Just enough" is not what you want to shoot for,
    > ever, you want to get past the "just enough" point and then consider
    > "what can I get for cheap at this point"?

    OK, I am not arguing. Just I thought that the small note like
    "we are doing this per-type to obfuscate even more" can help.
    I wouldn't have asked, but Cyrill rewrites this comment anyway.

    Perhaps this is just me, but my first (and wrong) impression was
    that somehow this is needed for correctness.


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-11 01:47    [W:0.020 / U:6.068 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site