Quick question: is this code security-sensitive at all?<div> </div><div>I know that there has been some security issues related to one compiler (Microsoft's) that was optimizing away the memset in some cases. So the suggested workaround was a loop. Reference: Writing Secure Code.</div> <div> </div><div>The other question is: Are we still supporting building with such a compiler? My bad memory tells me that VS 2008 and later should not have this behavior anymore, but it is worthwhile to double-check. On Tuesday, January 8, 2013, Stephan Bergmann wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On 12/24/2012 06:44 PM, Julien Nabet wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On 24/12/2012 18:29, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 8:45 AM, julien2412<<a>serval2412@yahoo.fr</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> By taking a look at the file sal/typesconfig/typesconfig.c, GetAlignment function, I wonder if we could replace the for loop by a memset to optimize a bit. So here's a straightforward patch: diff --git a/sal/typesconfig/typesconfig.c b/sal/typesconfig/typesconfig.c index 473f07a..ef52c5f 100644 --- a/sal/typesconfig/typesconfig.c +++ b/sal/typesconfig/typesconfig.c @@ -262,11 +262,9 @@ int GetAlignment( Type eT ) { char a[ 16*8 ]; long p = (long)(void*)a; - int i; /* clear a[...] to set legal value for double access */ - for ( i = 0; i< 16*8; i++ ) - a[i] = 0; + memset(a, 0, sizeof(a)); p = ( p + 0xF )& ~0xF; for ( i = 1; i< 16; i++ ) Would it be ok? </blockquote> well you can't remove int i; since it is still used in the second for loop. and I doubt that that code is run very often... namely 4 times per execution of the typesconfig executable... which in turn run dozens of fprintf... I'd say that this micro-optimization would be completely un-measurable, and may or may not be an optimization at all depending on how the memset is treated. but sure, it is 'ok', as in it won't hurt anything. </blockquote></blockquote> The benefit of memset over an explicit loop here would be shorter, more obvious (IMO) code, so I'd suggest you do the change after all. Stephan <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> ok let's forget it, I suppose that the one who made this loop has certainly good reasons for this + you must be right, micro-optimization </blockquote> _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list <a>LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org</a> <a href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice" target="_blank">http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice</a> </blockquote></div> -- Marc-André LAVERDIÈRE "Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything." -James 1:4 <a href="http://asimplediscipleslife.blogspot.com/">http://asimplediscipleslife.blogspot.com/</a> <a href="http://mlaverd.theunixplace.com">mlaverd.theunixplace.com</a>