linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] sha: prevent removal of memset as dead store in sha1

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:	Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:20:38 +0100
From:	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	roel kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, mikpe@...uu.se,
	linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sha: prevent removal of memset as dead store in  sha1_update()

Andi Kleen writes:
 > roel kluin <roel.kluin@...il.com> writes:
 > 
 > >> And it's wrong because the reason the memset() is there seems to be
 > >> to clear out key information that might exist kernel stack so that
 > >> it's more difficult for rogue code to get at things.
 > >
 > > If the memset is optimized away then the clear out does not occur. Do you
 > > know a different way to fix this? I observed this with:
 > 
 > You could always cast to volatile before memsetting?

I tried that and it doesn't work. Furthermore passing a volatile void *
to a function expecting a void * provokes a compiler warning.

I currently think that defining and using

void secure_bzero(void *p, size_t n)
{
	memset(p, 0, n);
	/* We need for this memset() to be performed even if *p
	 * is about to disappear (a local auto variable going out
	 * of scope or some dynamic memory being kfreed()).
	 * Thus we need to fake a "use" of *p here.
	 * barrier() achieves that effect, and much more.
	 * TODO: find a better alternative to barrier() here.
	 */
	barrier();
}

would be a first good step. We can then ask the gcc folks for
a weaker alternative to barrier() that's guaranteed to keep the
object at [p, p+n[ live.
--
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/