Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Jorge Almeida <jjalmeida@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] memset_s
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 07:17:51
Message-Id: CAKpSnpK_f2DCkZj9ca8LPzNE7hcJBcpaAO-c1L891Rc5v-cucQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] memset_s by Mart Raudsepp
1 On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote:
2 > On L, 2017-11-11 at 00:10 +0000, Jorge Almeida wrote:
3 >> Well, most programmers probably won't care about this stuff anyway,
4 >> and people who deal with cryptography tend to be more cautious than
5 >> average. But I'm not really making a case for safe versions of known
6 >> functions. After all, the usual functions do fine for most
7 >> applications. memset() would be enough to clear RAM with sensitive
8 >> data if we had a pragma (or equivalent) to convince the compiler to
9 >> not ignore it (I mean a pragma to invoke on a particular function
10 >> definition when the programmer feels that a black box behaviour is
11 >> undesirable). Of course, solving the problem of the compiler copying
12 >> stuff around might be harder nut to crack.
13 >
14 > Sounds like you want explicit_bzero from libbsd?
15 >
16 According to their man page, yes. I'll have to [try to] check the
17 source. I wonder how they do it? Even the volatile modifier doesn't
18 solve the problem, according to the link in previous post.
19
20 Anyway, there are probably circumstances where not optimizing a
21 particular function would be useful. Zeroing sensitive data is just
22 the first that comes to mind. (For example, what if you prefer
23 overwriting your sensitive data with random bytes?)
24
25 Jorge

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-user] Re: memset_s Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@×××××.com>