On 10/08/2014 04:30 AM, Sandy Harris wrote:
I have started a thread about this on the gcc help mailing list
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-10/msg00047.html
Great, perhaps you want to pass a patch proposal to gcc folks?
We might consider replacinging memzero_explicit with memset_s()
I have started a thread about this on the gcc help mailing list
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2014-10/msg00047.html
We might consider replacinging memzero_explicit with memset_s() since
that is in the C!! standard, albeit I think as optional. IBM, Apple,
NetBSD, ... have that.
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:09:40PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
There was recently a patch to the random driver to replace memset()
because, according to the submitter, gcc sometimes optimises memset()
away which might leave data unnecessarily exposed. The solution
suggested was a function
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:09:40PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
There was recently a patch to the random driver to replace memset()
because, according to the submitter, gcc sometimes optimises memset()
away which might
On Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 01:59:06PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:09:40PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
There was recently a patch to the random driver to replace memset()
because, according to
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:09:40PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
There was recently a patch to the random driver to replace memset()
because, according to the submitter, gcc sometimes optimises memset()
away ...
On 10/06/2014 08:52 PM, Sandy Harris wrote:
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jason Cooper ja...@lakedaemon.net wrote:
On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:09:40PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
...
There was recently a patch to the random driver to replace memset()
because, according to the submitter, gcc
Hi Sandy,
On 10/05/2014 05:09 AM, Sandy Harris wrote:
There was recently a patch to the random driver to replace memset()
because, according to the submitter, gcc sometimes optimises memset()
away which might leave data unnecessarily exposed. The solution
suggested was a function called
There was recently a patch to the random driver to replace memset()
because, according to the submitter, gcc sometimes optimises memset()
away which might leave data unnecessarily exposed. The solution
suggested was a function called memzero_explicit(). There was a fair
bit of discussion and the
