From: Sandy Harris Subject: Re: memset() in crypto code? Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 13:59:06 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20141006174403.GB14468@titan.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 To: Jason Cooper , linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-ig0-f181.google.com ([209.85.213.181]:47261 "EHLO mail-ig0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753065AbaJFR7H (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Oct 2014 13:59:07 -0400 Received: by mail-ig0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r10so3215239igi.14 for ; Mon, 06 Oct 2014 10:59:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141006174403.GB14468@titan.lakedaemon.net> Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Jason Cooper wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2014 at 11:09:40PM -0400, Sandy Harris wrote: >> There was recently a patch to the random driver to replace memset() >> because, according to the submitter, gcc sometimes optimises memset() >> away which might leave data unnecessarily exposed. The solution >> suggested was a function called memzero_explicit(). There was a fair >> bit of discussion and the patch was accepted. > > Do you have a pointer? https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/8/25/497