netdev - 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]

Message-ID: <CAHmME9rzRMHMWFUSGPsVDP573cdrVCYN36WuAet-aSsir0DFMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 03:41:44 +0200
From:   "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
Cc:     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 Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:39 AM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> > > +     const size_t num = ctx->num % POLY1305_BLOCK_SIZE;
> > 0 <= ctx->num < POLY1305_BLOCK_SIZE, so no need to mod by POLY1305_BLOCK_SIZE.
> > > +     size_t num = ctx->num % POLY1305_BLOCK_SIZE;
> > Same here.
>
> I know, but I was having a hard time convincing gcc-8 of that
> invariant, and it was warning me. Perhaps this is something they
> fixed, though, between 8.1 and 8.2 though. I'll check back and adjust
> accordingly.

This was changed here:
https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/commit/?id=37f114a73ba37219b00a66f0a51219a696599745

I can't reproduce with 8.2 anymore, so perhaps I should remove it now.
Unless you'd like to avoid a warning on old compilers. Since there's
no difference in speed, probably we should avoid the 8.1 warning and
leave it be?