Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Sender: Arvind Sankar <niveditas98@gmail.com>
From:   Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 11:39:27 -0400
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org" <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] crypto: Use memzero_explicit() for clearing state
Message-ID: <20201023153927.GA217686@rani.riverdale.lan>
References: <20201020203957.3512851-1-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <20201020203957.3512851-2-nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
 <20201022043633.GD857@sol.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201022043633.GD857@sol.localdomain>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 09:36:33PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 04:39:52PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote:
> > Without the barrier_data() inside memzero_explicit(), the compiler may
> > optimize away the state-clearing if it can tell that the state is not
> > used afterwards. At least in lib/crypto/sha256.c:__sha256_final(), the
> > function can get inlined into sha256(), in which case the memset is
> > optimized away.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Arvind Sankar <nivedita@alum.mit.edu>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> 
> Maybe get the one in arch/arm64/crypto/sha3-ce-glue.c too?
> 
> - Eric

Hm, there are a few more as well like that. But now I'm thinking it's
only the generic sha256.c that may be problematic. The rest of them are
in _final() functions which will be stored as function pointers in a
structure, so there should be no risk of them getting optimized away?