Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Crypto friendly optimization? johnl@taugh.com (John R Levine) (2024-08-24) |
| Re: Crypto friendly optimization? Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com (Keith Thompson) (2024-08-24) |
| Re: Crypto friendly optimization? ianlancetaylor@gmail.com (Ian Lance Taylor) (2024-08-24) |
| Re: Crypto friendly optimization? Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com (Keith Thompson) (2024-08-24) |
| Re: Crypto friendly optimization? david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2024-08-25) |
| Re: Crypto friendly optimization? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2024-08-25) |
| Re: Crypto friendly optimization? david.brown@hesbynett.no (David Brown) (2024-08-25) |
| From: | John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Sat, 24 Aug 2024 17:14:53 -0400 |
| Organization: | Compilers Central |
| Injection-Info: | gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="2606"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | optimize, question |
| Posted-Date: | 24 Aug 2024 17:15:35 EDT |
On a cryptography list people were complaining that compiler optimizers
mess up their cryptographic code and make it insecure. They try to write
code that runs in constant time, or that erases all the temporary storage,
but the compilers say oh, that's dead code, or oh, I can make this faster
with a few branches and the erases go away and the constatnt time isn't.
This 2018 paper from Cambridge discusses changes they made to Clang/LLVM
so they could tell the compiler what they wanted it to do. Has there been
other work on this topic?
https://on.ft.com/3MjWez0
R's,
John
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.