From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS22989 209.51.188.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D57991F4C1 for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 08:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=clisp.org header.i=@clisp.org header.b="VEqB3QqY"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ozvgD-0006ab-OX; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 03:09:25 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ozvgC-0006aO-0P for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 03:09:24 -0500 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.160]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1ozvg8-0006JQ-Ts for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 03:09:23 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1669709344; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=clisp.org; h=References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Cc:Date: From:Subject:Sender; bh=crzWBYAyS7gWvGTXtfrMWsa/khPMf1+vV07yXSWDMm0=; b=VEqB3QqYgSB4narUVQiw/EisGOggU7o5Z79c6paO3HRuTK3omq5kOpWDmcGrkojMud rQ1IksQWRhVpkjXNPX5yI8X8SVswFjS+wDhVD71GfhXJObB6gzfkfW1c+IIkUi+1N095 lDggUlQEY4ip7j3Eu4c0eZXH6PfdL6i52hW8Gwc7B6YT0wg0PDSJybr/Ng9pqL8a0Zfm SiPBTPBdU+DTyIx9Ws8jGwrGnu2ckysXpd2LxXvWbvN/nbstgoZcWvUNX3Eeiu1nziNf FxkQmhNKLsEm4668YxHWAxMcO2XS8LDGOp5HZ7MSML98q0TWH4cXY3ABFIbO1Pbj8j3L 4W/w== Authentication-Results: strato.com; dkim=none X-RZG-AUTH: ":Ln4Re0+Ic/6oZXR1YgKryK8brlshOcZlIWs+iCP5vnk6shH0WWb0LN8XZoH94zq68+3cfpPE2vYTJXntiTaeFT3/OqfkdncF" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from nimes.localnet by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 48.2.1 AUTH) with ESMTPSA id v9c7e6yAT8935K2 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate); Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:09:03 +0100 (CET) From: Bruno Haible To: Paul Eggert Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org Subject: Re: [PROPOSED 4/4] explicit_bzero: implement via memset_explicit Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:09:03 +0100 Message-ID: <2749034.XrmoMso0CX@nimes> In-Reply-To: <915880f6-f261-25ea-d533-7d708758441c@cs.ucla.edu> References: <20221128045543.1355731-1-eggert@cs.ucla.edu> <3219858.G96rZvMJ2N@nimes> <915880f6-f261-25ea-d533-7d708758441c@cs.ucla.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Received-SPF: none client-ip=81.169.146.160; envelope-from=bruno@clisp.org; helo=mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Sender: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Paul Eggert wrote: > Thanks for the detailed review. I installed the patches with corrections > that I hope addressed all your comments. Thanks Paul. Very nice! > > I don't understand the purpose of this line: > > memset (checkbuf, i, SECRET_SIZE); > > Wouldn't it be better to have > > memcpy (stbuf, SECRET, SECRET_SIZE); > > instead? > > I added the latter call but kept the former Perfect. Indeed, I misread the proposed code. Sorry. Bruno