Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:57:00 +0200 From: Patrick Lamaiziere <patfbsd@davenulle.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: Cleanup for cryptographic algorithms vs. compiler optimizations Message-ID: <20100613235700.66050a93@davenulle.org> In-Reply-To: <20100613213512.GG87112@cicely7.cicely.de> References: <20100611162118.GR39829@acme.spoerlein.net> <867hm5tl6u.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100612153526.GA3632@acme.spoerlein.net> <20100612163208.GS87112@cicely7.cicely.de> <864oh86tnl.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100612225216.GT87112@cicely7.cicely.de> <86k4q33pk2.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100613160035.GD87112@cicely7.cicely.de> <20100613162026.GQ40531@camelot.theinternet.com.au> <20100613213512.GG87112@cicely7.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:35:12 +0200, Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely7.cicely.de> a écrit : > Go back to the originating mail. > Crypto code wasn't aware of this problem and this is a way more > obviuous optimization than function exchange. > And I do believe that the programmers were clever people. > Alarming, isn't it? The removal of dead store by gcc is recent. There was a discussion about this problem on the linux crypto mailing list, see: http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org/msg04229.html If i remember well, they have introduced a secure_memset() function or something like that, but I do not find this piece of code any more. Regards.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100613235700.66050a93>