On Mon, 8 Sep 2014, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote: > On So, 2014-09-07 at 23:23 +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > > Recently, in commit 13aa93c70e71 ("random: add and use memzero_explicit() > > for clearing data"), we have found that GCC may optimize some memset() > > cases away when it detects a stack variable is not being used anymore > > and going out of scope. This can happen, for example, in cases when we > > are clearing out sensitive information such as keying material or any > > e.g. intermediate results from crypto computations, etc. > > > > With the help of Coccinelle, we can figure out and fix such occurences > > in the crypto subsytem as well. Julia Lawall provided the following > > Coccinelle program: > > > > @@ > > type T; > > identifier x; > > @@ > > > > T x; > > ... when exists > > when any > > -memset > > +memzero_explicit > > (&x, > > -0, > > ...) > > ... when != x > > when strict > > > > @@ > > type T; > > identifier x; > > @@ > > > > T x[...]; > > ... when exists > > when any > > -memset > > +memzero_explicit > > (x, > > -0, > > ...) > > ... when != x > > when strict > > I think this Coccinelle patch won't make it completely unnecessary for a > manual audit as it does not take optimizations (dead code eliminitation) > into account? I agree. If you see something else that could be taken into account in the semantic patch, please let me know. julia > > > > > Therefore, make use of the drop-in replacement memzero_explicit() for > > exactly such cases instead of using memset(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Thanks, > Hannes > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html