From: Bastien Roucariès
According to https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15495#c11
llvm need g type constraint
Signed-off-by: Bastien Roucariès
---
lib/explicit_bzero.c | 6 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/explicit_bzero.c b/lib/explicit_bzero.c
index
From: Bastien Roucariès
Signed-off-by: Bastien Roucariès
---
lib/explicit_bzero.c | 9 -
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/explicit_bzero.c b/lib/explicit_bzero.c
index 2168a5285..489732791 100644
--- a/lib/explicit_bzero.c
+++ b/lib/explicit_bzero.c
@@ -3
From: Bastien Roucariès
Use '\0' instead of 0
Signed-off-by: Bastien Roucariès
---
lib/explicit_bzero.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/explicit_bzero.c b/lib/explicit_bzero.c
index 03968acbf..072c59498 100644
--- a/lib/explicit_bzero.c
+++ b/lib/explici
From: Bastien Roucariès
Some OS define memset_s instead of explicit_bzero. Use it.
Signed-off-by: Bastien Roucariès
---
lib/explicit_bzero.c | 7 +++
m4/explicit_bzero.m4 | 1 +
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/lib/explicit_bzero.c b/lib/explicit_bzero.c
index 51b79a891..2168
From: Bastien Roucariès
Some implementation could add canaries after free failling the test
Signed-off-by: Bastien Roucariès
---
tests/test-explicit_bzero.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tests/test-explicit_bzero.c b/tests/test-explicit_bzero.c
index 52
From: Bastien Roucariès
Signed-off-by: Bastien Roucariès
---
lib/explicit_bzero.c | 6 --
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/explicit_bzero.c b/lib/explicit_bzero.c
index bb52d11de..03968acbf 100644
--- a/lib/explicit_bzero.c
+++ b/lib/explicit_bzero.c
@@ -54,
The test should be fixed in case on hardened compiler (canaries).
Tested under linux with gcc and clang, and mingw (under wine)
[PATCH 1/6] Fix test in case of canaries on heap buffer after free
[PATCH 2/6] Use memset_s if possible for explicit_bzero
[PATCH 3/6] Use SecureZeroMemory on windows fo
Hi Bastien,
> But I will prefer that you push first the test (I have not written
> myself and it need comments that are outside my english language
> skills).
>
> So could you push a test ?
I'm pushing the test as shown below.
It confirms my suspicion that with just a plain memset instead of
ex
Yes, it does.
But I will prefer that you push first the test (I have not written
myself and it need comments that are outside my english language
skills).
So could you push a test ?
I will redo my serie above your test
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 1:22 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Hi Bastien,
>
> > S
Thank you for the clarification.
I will do it.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 1:33 PM Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Hi Bastien,
>
> > [PATCH 1/6] Use memset_s if possible for explicit_bzero
> > [PATCH 2/6] Use SecureZeroMemory on windows for explicit_bzero
> > [PATCH 3/6] Support clang for explicit_bzero
> >
Hi Bastien,
> [PATCH 1/6] Use memset_s if possible for explicit_bzero
> [PATCH 2/6] Use SecureZeroMemory on windows for explicit_bzero
> [PATCH 3/6] Support clang for explicit_bzero
> [PATCH 4/6] Implement fallback for explicit_bzero using jump to
> [PATCH 5/6] Improve styling in explicit_bzero
>
Hi Bastien,
> Simple test
A module description file modules/explicit_bzero-tests is needed as well.
Then you can test the changed implementation through
1.
./gnulib-tool --create-testdir --dir=/tmp/testdir --single-configure
explicit_bzero
2. transport the test dir to a different machine,
3.
12 matches
Mail list logo