|
Message-ID: <20230526205720.GP4163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 16:57:21 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: Jₑₙₛ Gustedt <jens.gustedt@...ia.fr> Cc: Joakim Sindholt <opensource@...sha.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [C23 string conversion 1/3] C23: add the new memset_explicit function On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 10:35:52PM +0200, Jₑₙₛ Gustedt wrote: > Rich, > > on Fri, 26 May 2023 16:16:03 -0400 you (Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>) > wrote: > > > We had all of these discussions back when explicit_bzero was added, > > and it was done the way it was done because it's portable (within the > > framework of what musl already requires) and non-arch-specific, has > > zero overhead, avoids any code duplication or bad performance > > open-coding another memset variant, > > My impression is that such information is quite difficult to find, but > maybe I didn't search enough. Sometimes code comments would help ;-) It was discussed in the "thoughts on reallocarray, explicit_bzero?" thread in 2014, starting here: https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2014/05/19/3 > Bad performance really isn't a valid argument in this case. This is > not supposed to be efficient. Any user that uses this has to know that > they are trading it for something. I'm not sure whether performance here is a good criterion or not, but making it ~gratuitously~ slow with an extra implementation of memcpy open-coded here does not make sense. > > and avoids taking part in any security theater (pretending we can > > clear things we can't). > > It is not about taking part. For me it is just about offering to our > users the best service for this tricky question that we may, and not > less. Do you have something in mind about how the explcit_bzero implementation we have doesn't do that? Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.