Steffen Nurpmeso <stef...@sdaoden.eu> wrote: > Theo de Raadt wrote in > <61139.1597087...@cvs.openbsd.org>: > |Philipp Klaus Krause <p...@spth.de> wrote: > |> Am 10.08.20 um 17:00 schrieb Theo de Raadt: > |>> Philipp Klaus Krause <p...@spth.de> wrote: > |>> > |>>> OpenBSD has the explicit_bzero function to reliably (i.e. even if not > |>>> observable in the C abstract machine) overwrite memory with zeroes. > |>>> > |>>> WG14 is currently considering adding similar functionality to C2X. > |>> > |>> Then perhaps in the interests of the public they should use the same > |>> name, but I suspect they won't. > |> > |> The functionality (i.e. some way to reliably overwrite memory) already > |> exists under different names: explicit_bzero in OpenBSD > | > |This one was first. > > If i recall correctly others had already started using volatile > pointers to memset(3) before.
Cannot take you seriously. A handful of instances where manual workaround were used cannot be honestly compared to an API used use 641 times in a complete operating system source tree. I was one of the people perpetuating those hacks. But the manual workarounds could not be sustainably "nitpicky" applied throughout a large source tree, and so we (openbsd and google developers) created a standard-ready API. That API has been adopted very substantially. But no, WG14 are the lords and masters in the high castle, and now 6 years after the ship sailed something Must Be Done, it must look like They Solved The Problem, and so they'll create an incompatible API. Will they be heroes? No, not really. Changing the name is villainous.
