Hi.
(2012/08/30 7:06), Paul Goyette wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
Module Name:src
Committed By:bouyer
Date:Wed Aug 29 20:39:24 UTC 2012
Modified Files:
src/sys/dev/pci: if_wm.c if_wmreg.h
Log Message:
Make
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
BTW, reason I am asking is that I had previously (about a year or so
ago) needed to disable the offload functions on the 82574 because it
wasn't working. This commit seems to imply that it fixes only the I350
so I was wondering if some other change
In article 20120830121650.5695217...@cvs.netbsd.org,
Matthias Drochner source-changes-d@NetBSD.org wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Module Name: src
Committed By: drochner
Date: Thu Aug 30 12:16:49 UTC 2012
Modified Files:
src/include: string.h
src/lib/libc/string: Makefile.inc
Why not explicit_memset() consttime_memcmp()?
memset() and memcmp()'s semantics both don't fit too well:
The former forces to carry that mostly useless fill pattern argument around,
which could be in the way of optimization.
memcmp() promises to be usable for alphabetical sorting which would
Modified Files:
src/usr.bin/config: config.1 main.c
Log Message:
make config -x look at the booted kernel first.
Probably it's better to use #if !defined(HAVE_NBTOOL_CONFIG_H)
rather than #ifdef __NetBSD__ ?
---
Izumi Tsutsui
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 04:54:19AM -0700, Paul Goyette wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Masanobu SAITOH wrote:
BTW, reason I am asking is that I had previously (about a year or so
ago) needed to disable the offload functions on the 82574 because it
wasn't working. This commit seems to imply that
On Aug 30, 2:51pm, m.droch...@fz-juelich.de (m.droch...@fz-juelich.de) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src
| memset() and memcmp()'s semantics both don't fit too well:
| The former forces to carry that mostly useless fill pattern argument around,
| which could be in the way of optimization.
On Aug 31, 12:02am, tsut...@ceres.dti.ne.jp (Izumi Tsutsui) wrote:
-- Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/usr.bin/config
| Probably it's better to use #if !defined(HAVE_NBTOOL_CONFIG_H)
| rather than #ifdef __NetBSD__ ?
I'll have to think about it a little more (i.e. what's the scenario
of building
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 02:12:24PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
I would prefer not to proliferate the b* function names in the future.
Why not explicit_memset() consttime_memcmp()? It is not like the old
b* functions have clear semantics or consistent prototypes!
I fully agree.
Joerg
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:44:41AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
| memcmp() promises to be usable for alphabetical sorting which would make
| a constant-time algorithm needlessly complicated and is not of use for
| the intended applications.
memcmp() does not promise alphabetical
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:01:06 +
From: David Holland dholland-sourcechan...@netbsd.org
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:44:41AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
int
consttime_memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t n)
[snip]
so, I evidently missed this: what's
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:44:41 -0400
From: chris...@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas)
memcmp() does not promise alphabetical sorting. It just promises to do the
byte comparison as unsigned so that the results are consistent. It is not
complicated to do this at all, for example:
int
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:03:28PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:44:41AM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
int
consttime_memcmp(const void *s1, const void *s2, size_t n)
[snip]
so, I evidently missed this: what's consttime about this?
In article 20120830170609.14dd160...@jupiter.mumble.net,
Taylor R Campbell campbell+netbsd-source-change...@mumble.net wrote:
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:44:41 -0400
From: chris...@zoulas.com (Christos Zoulas)
memcmp() does not promise alphabetical sorting. It just promises to do the
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:44:31 + (UTC)
From: chris...@astron.com (Christos Zoulas)
In article 20120830170609.14dd160...@jupiter.mumble.net,
Taylor R Campbell campbell+netbsd-source-change...@mumble.net wrote:
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:44:41 -0400
From:
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:51:13 +0100
From: David Laight da...@l8s.co.uk
FWIW which versions of memset() aren't 'constant time' ?
Apart from ones that try not to dirty pages.
The issue with memset isn't timing attacks, but rather that the C
compiler is likely to optimize away the
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 07:03:43PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
The issue with memset isn't timing attacks, but rather that the C
compiler is likely to optimize away the apparently useless memset from
code that looks like this, and thereby leave keys floating about in
RAM:
{
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:39:35PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:32:34 +
From: David Holland dholland-sourcechan...@netbsd.org
On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:03:28PM +, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
It means that the time it takes does not vary
18 matches
Mail list logo
