[PATCH 0/4] explicit_bzero, this time for sure

[Zack Weinberg]

On 08/17/2016 06:20 PM, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> On 17/08/16 18:19, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> anything I would like to hear about it.  If anyone has any ideas for
>> how to write a test that will start failing if a compiler ever learns
>> to "see through" __glibc_read_memory, I would like to hear about that,
>> too.  (I can imagine a way to do it with gcc's scan-assembler tests,
>> but we don't have those here.)
> 
> Perhaps? https://plus.google.com/+MatthewDempsky/posts/KQHFBouxurX

Ingenious!  Done - patch 5/4 attached to this message, and also included
in zack/explicit-bzero.  I would fold this into patch 2 for landing, but
it may be easier to review this way.

(What is the preferred way to deal with user-namespace project branches
that get rebased?  The server won't let me push -f; I can delete the
branch and recreate it but that seems ... not great.)

zw

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Add-a-test-for-explicit_bzero-not-getting-optimized-.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 13943 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20160818/8e5f015a/attachment.bin>