[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:0.079 / U:4.580 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site