From: Stefan Richter Subject: Re: Is kernel optimized with dead store removal? Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:24:26 +0100 Message-ID: <4B86C05A.9010604@s5r6.in-berlin.de> References: <4B85A49E.6000803@gmail.com> <19334.22971.970220.245930@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <4B8693B9.3060102@gmail.com> <19334.40943.479593.304961@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Roel Kluin , lkml , Herbert Xu , "David S. Miller" , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org To: Mikael Pettersson Return-path: Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:58862 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933012Ab0BYSY4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:24:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <19334.40943.479593.304961@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Mikael Pettersson wrote: > It's only vulnerable if the data leaks to a less trusted domain. > There is no domain crossing in your user-space example. > In the kernel case, the domain crossing would be as I wrote: leaking > recycled and uninitialized memory to user-space (and those leaks of > uninitialized memory are frowned upon and quickly fixed when discovered). Quickly fixed when discovered, but not necessary quickly discovered... -- Stefan Richter -=====-==-=- --=- ==--= http://arcgraph.de/sr/