linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v5 07/20] zinc: Poly1305 generic C implementations and selftest

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 18 Sep 2018 21:13:04 -0700
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 07/20] zinc: Poly1305 generic C implementations and selftest


> On Sep 18, 2018, at 6:35 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 2:50 AM Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org> wrote:
>> Hardcoding the 'input' array to 600 bytes forces the full amount of space to be
>> reserved in the kernel image for every test vector.  Also, if anyone adds a
>> longer test vector they will need to remember to increase the value.
>> 
>> It should be a const pointer instead, like the test vectors in crypto/testmgr.h.
> 
> I know. The agony. This has been really annoying me. I originally did
> it the right way, but removed it last week, when I noticed that gcc
> failed to put it in the initconst section:
> 
> https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/commit/?id=f4698d20f13946afc6ce99e98685ba3f9adc4474
> 
> Even changing the (u8[]){ ... } into a (const u8[]){ ... } or even
> into a const string literal does not do the trick. It makes it into
> the constant data section with const, but it does not make it into the
> initconst section. What a bummer.
> 
> I went asking about this on the gcc mailing list, to see if there was
> just some aspect of C that I had overlooked:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2018-09/msg00043.html

Can you not uglify the code a bit by using normal (non-compound) liberals as described in the response to that email?