Am Freitag, 10. April 2015, 16:00:03 schrieb Hannes Frederic Sowa:
Hi Hannes,
>On Fr, 2015-04-10 at 15:25 +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote:
>> I would like to bring up that topic again as I did some more analyses:
>>
>> For testing I used the following code:
>>
>> static inline void memset_secure(void *s, int c, size_t n)
>> {
>>
>> memset(s, c, n);
>>
>> BARRIER
>>
>> }
>>
>> where BARRIER is defined as:
>>
>> (1) __asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (s) : "0" (s));
>>
>> (2) __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory");
>>
>> (3) __asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (s) : "0" (s) : "memory");
>
>Hm, I wonder a little bit...
>
>Could you quickly test if you replace (s) with (n) just for the fun of
>it? I don't know if we should ask clang people about that, at least it
>is their goal to be as highly compatible with gcc inline asm.
Using
__asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (n) : "0" (n) : "memory");
clang O2/3: no mov
gcc O2/3: mov present
==> not good
Using
__asm__ __volatile__("" : "=r" (n) : "0" (n));
clang O2/3: no mov
gcc O2/3: no mov
==> not good
What do you expect that change shall do?
>
>Thanks for looking into this!
>
>Bye,
>Hannes
Ciao
Stephan
--
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
