linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key read

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:   Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:34:33 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc:     Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>,
        James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
        "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, keyrings@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-integrity@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
        Jerry Snitselaar <jsnitsel@...hat.com>,
        Roberto Sassu <roberto.sassu@...wei.com>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        Chris von Recklinghausen <crecklin@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] KEYS: Avoid false positive ENOMEM error on key
 read

On 3/18/20 4:27 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> +static inline void __kvzfree(const void *addr, size_t len)
>> +{
>> +	if (addr) {
>> +		memset((void *)addr, 0, len);
>> +		kvfree(addr);
>> +	}
>> +}
> I wonder if that would be better as "kvfree(memset(...))" as memset() will
> return the address parameter.  If memset is not inline, it avoids the need for
> the compiler to save the parameter.
>
> David

Doing this is micro-optimization. As the keys subsystem is that
performance critical, do we need to do that to save a cycle or two while
making the code a bit harder to read?

Cheers,
Longman