Re: More on in-memory zeroisation

On Wed, Dec 12, 2007 at 05:27:38PM -0500, Thierry Moreau
wrote:
> As a consequence of alleged consensus above, my
understanding of the C 
> standard would prevail and (memset)(?,0,?) would refer
to an external 
> linkage function, which would guarantee (to the
sterngth of the above 
> consensus) resetting an arbitrary memory area for
secret intermediate 
> result protection.

GCC on x86-64 (-O2) compiles this function to the same
machine code
regardless of the value of ZEROIZE:

#include <string.h>

int sensitive(int key)
   {
   char buf[16];
   int result = 0;
   size_t j;

   for(j = 0; j != sizeof(buf); j++)
      buf[j] = key + j;

   for(j = 0; j != sizeof(buf); j++)
      result += buf[j];

#if ZEROIZE
   (memset)(buf, 0, sizeof(buf));
#endif

   return result;
   }

Even if (memset) must refer to a function with external
linkage (an
analysis I find dubious), there is nothing stopping the
compiler from
doing IPA/whole program optimization - especially with a
very basic
function like memset (in the code above, if buf is declared
volatile,
GCC does do the memset: but it does it by moving immediate
zero values
directly to the memory locations, not by actually jumping to
any
external function).

Regards,
  Jack

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography"
to majordomometzdowd.com