The curious tendency among cryptographers to believe that they need to make any OOB access the attacker suggests in order to be “constant-time”.
You forget that add (with pc as a possible operand) is Turing complete. :-)
-
-
So instead you’re leaking into the caches and ITLB, since they’re now functioning as your branch predictor =)
-
(Also, add-to-PC is a branch that can be predicted)
-
Not host pc. Virtual machine pc.
-
Yeah, in that case see previous comment. The caches hold your branch history.
-
But you also write your code that runs in the vm such that its branch history is worthless.
-
in that case why do you have the vm?
-
To mitigate variable insn timing (if you can write host asm) or lack of timing model in C (portable code only).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The interpreter implementation itself will contain branches. probably data dependent branches.
-
No, it's literally a while loop that computes 2 src addrs & one dest from insn bits & indirections, then does add & store.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.