linux-kernel - Is kernel optimized with dead store removal?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4B85A49E.6000803@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:13:50 +0100
From:	Roel Kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>
To:	"lkml" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Is kernel optimized with dead store removal?

According to http://cwe.mitre.org/data/slices/2000.html#14 due to optimization
A call to memset() can be removed as a dead store when the buffer is not used
after its value is overwritten. Does this optimization also occur during
compilation of the Linux kernel? Then I think I may have found some
vulnerabilities. One is sha1_update() where memset(temp, 0, sizeof(temp)); may
be removed.

Roel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/