Am Montag, 27. April 2015, 22:34:30 schrieb Daniel Borkmann:
Hi Daniel,
On 04/27/2015 09:10 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
...
I posted the issue on the clang mailing list on April 10 -- no word so
far. I would interpret this as a sign that it is a no-issue for them.
Hm. ;)
Here's a
On 04/27/2015 10:41 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
...
It seems you have the code already in mind, so please if you could write it
:-)
Ok, sure. I'll cook something by tomorrow morning.
Cheers,
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-crypto in
the body of a
On 04/27/2015 09:10 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
...
I posted the issue on the clang mailing list on April 10 -- no word so far. I
would interpret this as a sign that it is a no-issue for them.
Hm. ;)
Here's a bug report on the topic, gcc vs llvm:
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15495
Am Freitag, 10. April 2015, 16:50:22 schrieb Stephan Mueller:
Hi Stephan,
Am Freitag, 10. April 2015, 16:46:04 schrieb Daniel Borkmann:
Hi Daniel,
On 04/10/2015 04:36 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Freitag, 10. April 2015, 16:26:00 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
...
I suspected a problem in
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 04:33:17PM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Freitag, 10. April 2015, 14:22:08 schrieb mancha security:
Hi mancha,
__asm__ __volatile__(: :r(p) :memory)
gcc -O2/3: mov present
clang -O2/3: mov present
== approach would be good too.
Note, the assembly code
[ Cc'ing Cesar ]
On 03/18/2015 10:53 AM, mancha wrote:
Hi.
The kernel RNG introduced memzero_explicit in d4c5efdb9777 to protect
memory cleansing against things like dead store optimization:
void memzero_explicit(void *s, size_t count)
{
memset(s, 0, count);
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 10:53, mancha wrote:
Hi.
The kernel RNG introduced memzero_explicit in d4c5efdb9777 to protect
memory cleansing against things like dead store optimization:
void memzero_explicit(void *s, size_t count)
{
memset(s, 0, count);
Hi.
The kernel RNG introduced memzero_explicit in d4c5efdb9777 to protect
memory cleansing against things like dead store optimization:
void memzero_explicit(void *s, size_t count)
{
memset(s, 0, count);
OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR(s);
}
OPTIMIZER_HIDE_VAR, introduced in
On 03/18/2015 11:50 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 10:53, mancha wrote:
Hi.
The kernel RNG introduced memzero_explicit in d4c5efdb9777 to protect
memory cleansing against things like dead store optimization:
void memzero_explicit(void *s, size_t count)
{
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 11:56:43 schrieb Daniel Borkmann:
Hi Daniel,
On 03/18/2015 11:50 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 10:53, mancha wrote:
Hi.
The kernel RNG introduced memzero_explicit in d4c5efdb9777 to
protect
memory cleansing against things like dead
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:02:12 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 12:09, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 11:56:43 schrieb Daniel Borkmann:
On 03/18/2015 11:50 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 10:53, mancha wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 12:09, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 11:56:43 schrieb Daniel Borkmann:
On 03/18/2015 11:50 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 10:53, mancha wrote:
Hi.
The kernel RNG introduced memzero_explicit in d4c5efdb9777 to
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 13:14, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:02:12 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 12:09, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 11:56:43 schrieb Daniel Borkmann:
On 03/18/2015 11:50 AM, Hannes
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 01:02:12PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 12:09, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 11:56:43 schrieb Daniel Borkmann:
On 03/18/2015 11:50 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 10:53, mancha wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:19:07 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 13:14, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:02:12 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 12:09, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März
On 03/18/2015 01:20 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:19:07 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 13:14, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:02:12 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 12:09,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 13:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 03/18/2015 01:20 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:19:07 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
My proposal would be to add a
#define OPTIMIZER_HIDE_MEM(ptr, len) __asm__ __volatile__ ( : :
m(
({ struct { u8
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 16:09:34 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 13:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 03/18/2015 01:20 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:19:07 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
My proposal would be to add a
#define
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:56:19PM +0100, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
Maybe a BUILD_BUGON: ;)
Even better! :-)
- Ted
__label__ l1, l2;
char buffer[1024];
l1:
memset(buffer, 0, 1024);
l2:
BUILD_BUGON(l1 == l2);
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
Maybe we should add a kernel self-test that automatically checks
whether or not memset_explicit() gets optimized away? Otherwise we
might not notice when gcc or how we implement barrier() or whatever
else we end up using ends up changing.
It shold be something that is really fast, so it might be
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 03/18/2015 06:14 PM, mancha wrote:
...
Patch 0001 fixes the dead store issue in memzero_explicit().
Thanks! I have issued the fix for the memzero bug to Herbert in
your authorship as discussed, also giving some more
On 18-03-2015 14:14, mancha wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 05:02:01PM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 16:09:34 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Seems like just using barrier() is the best and easiest option.
However, if the idea is to use barrier() instead of
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 05:02:01PM +0100, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 16:09:34 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 13:42, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
On 03/18/2015 01:20 PM, Stephan Mueller wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 18. März 2015, 13:19:07
On 03/18/2015 06:14 PM, mancha wrote:
...
Patch 0001 fixes the dead store issue in memzero_explicit().
Thanks! I have issued the fix for the memzero bug to Herbert in
your authorship as discussed, also giving some more context.
For the 2nd issue, lets wait for Cesar.
Thanks again!
--
To
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015, at 18:41, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
Maybe we should add a kernel self-test that automatically checks
whether or not memset_explicit() gets optimized away? Otherwise we
might not notice when gcc or how we implement barrier() or whatever
else we end up using ends up changing.
25 matches
Mail list logo
