On Fri, Apr 19, 2024, at 2:45 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 4/19/24 11:04, Mikulas Patocka wrote: >> There's already "explicit_bzero", so maybe we could add >> "explicit_memcpy" > > Where would this stop? Wouldn't we also need explicit_memcmp, > explicit_memmove, explicit_mempcpy, etc.? Pretty much any function that > looks at memory could have the problem. Even C source code that doesn't > invoke any C library function could have the problem. As I recall, one of the arguments for _not_ adding explicit_bzero to glibc was that we couldn't guarantee copies of the secret data wouldn't hang around in registers. Is a hypothetical function __attribute__((clear_call_clobbered_regs_on_exit)) what we need here instead, maybe? zw
