HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
klutzy
nadeko
Rust2014–2015
klutzy / nadeko

nadeko

[INACTIVE] const-time Rust experiment

5Distinct people
5Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
99GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

[INACTIVE] const-time Rust experiment

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by month5 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-12-14 02:55:10 UTC to 2015-10-21 14:16:44 UTC.

01232014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsDec 20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsMay 20152015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 commentsOct 2015

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Dec 20142014-12-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Jan 20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 20152015-02-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC101
Mar 20152015-03-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Apr 20152015-04-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC000
May 20152015-05-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 20152015-06-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 20152015-07-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 20152015-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 20152015-09-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 20152015-10-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-11-01 00:00:00 UTC303

What Hacker News says

5 sources
> As far as I know, it is currently not possible to implement constant-time functions using stable Rust. For those wondering, that's because asm! is not stabilised and the stabilisation path for it is unclear[0], there's also been a proposal for an alternative asm![1], Rust otherwise relies on LLVM and Brian Anderson reported[2] having > been told by LLVM folks that getting LLVM to do constant time code generation is essentially hopeless, and it should just be written in asm. Nadeko[3] aims to do exactly that, but because of the above only works on nightly. [0] an RFC was created then retracted[4] for discussions on internals[5] [1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/129/files [2] http://rust-dev.1092773.n5.nabble.com/Rust-crypto-highlights... [3] https://github.com/klutzy/nadeko [4] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1274 [5] h
Read the rest
In BoringSSL
It is very probable that a sufficiently smart optimizer could see the assertion was always true and delete it. Then see no one reads "a" and delete it as well. In certain circumstances this can cause a secret to be leaked in, say a register, making our safe function unsafe. You need to be very careful writing secure code, and probably need to go down to the level of writing assembly to be sure the optimizer isn't turning your safe code into unsafe code. We actually have an interesting project in rust where someone is writing a syntax extension to take rust like code and generate assembly [0]. It's probably unsafe to use right now but if sufficiently well implemented it could be the foundation of a lot of interesting cryptography work. [0]: https://github.com/klutzy/nadeko
In Rust 1.0: Status report and final timeline

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.