Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965267AbbDJO0H (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:26:07 -0400 Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.28]:49874 "EHLO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965077AbbDJO0D (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:26:03 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: 57PJ3SCWasazcGPGklrKvWTeVYHXTDWojJazqgB9obmA 1428675962 Message-ID: <1428675960.3377.8.camel@stressinduktion.org> Subject: Re: [BUG/PATCH] kernel RNG and its secrets From: Hannes Frederic Sowa To: Stephan Mueller Cc: Daniel Borkmann , mancha , tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, dborkman@redhat.com Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 16:26:00 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1697288.aUGCRhyl06@tauon> References: <20150318095345.GA12923@zoho.com> <2792913.x6Cv5ZCyOY@tauon> <1428674403.3377.4.camel@stressinduktion.org> <1697288.aUGCRhyl06@tauon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.11 (3.12.11-1.fc21) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1601 Lines: 58 On Fr, 2015-04-10 at 16:09 +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > Am Freitag, 10. April 2015, 16:00:03 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa: > > Hi Hannes, > > >On Fr, 2015-04-10 at 15:25 +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: > >> I would like to bring up that topic again as I did some more analyses: > >> > >> For testing I used the following code: > >> > >> static inline void memset_secure(void *s, int c, size_t n) > >> { > >> > >> memset(s, c, n); > >> > >> BARRIER > >> > >> } > >> > >> where BARRIER is defined as: > >> > >> (1) __asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (s) : "0" (s)); > >> > >> (2) __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory"); > >> > >> (3) __asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (s) : "0" (s) : "memory"); > > > >Hm, I wonder a little bit... > > > >Could you quickly test if you replace (s) with (n) just for the fun of > >it? I don't know if we should ask clang people about that, at least it > >is their goal to be as highly compatible with gcc inline asm. > > Using > > __asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (n) : "0" (n) : "memory"); > > clang O2/3: no mov > > gcc O2/3: mov present > > ==> not good I suspected a problem in how volatile with non-present output args could be different, but this seems not to be the case. I would contact llvm/clang mailing list and ask. Maybe there is a problem? It seems kind of strange to me... Thanks, Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/