NARUSE, Yui wrote:
Hi,
(2010/01/12 9:38), Dr. Stephen Henson wrote:
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010, NARUSE, Yui wrote:
So I request X509_STORE_set_default_paths call this.
When this is merge, both Unix user and Windows user can use
[SNIP]
Thank you for your comment.
So I rewrite my patch as you
Here's a fix for bug 2095:
Applied to 1.0.0, thanks for the report. Not applied to HEAD as patch
doesn't apply cleanly, can you check HEAD too?
Two things to be noted in the context.
- HEAD branch sha1-x86_64 was updated to suite wider range of x86_64
implementations (in plain language
Brendan,
run make tests in the OpenSSL build tree, or even openssl speed rsa.
That'll test the code paths with known good code.
If it doesn't hang it's a problem in your code somewhere (try running under
valgrind at that point)- if it does hang , you should get better
diagnostics from make
Andy has now addressed this in x86_64-xlate.pl, patch reverted. Ticket
resolved.
Steve.
--
Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer.
Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org
__
OpenSSL
Moore's Law caught up with us; when doing speed tests on new platforms
(for AES-NI) we found that the calculation of the number of operations
to do was overflowing a 31-bit 'long'.
By switching to 'unsigned long' and re-ordering the calculations a bit,
we can postpone that overflow for a
On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 18:41 +0100, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
Or two milliard, in which case one doesn't even have to switch to
unsigned. Please test http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=19095. I opted
for limiting loops at 2^31, because extending to 64-bit is problematic,
as it implies
Earlier this year Number Cruncher already reported a valgrind error in
function AES_cbc_encrypt and included a two-line patch to fix it.
Please see this post for reference:
http://marc.info/?l=openssl-devm=123211846607090w=2
Yesterday I ran into the same valgrind error message using
Tim Hudson via RT wrote:
I kicked off some builds last night as I was curious as to the answer to
the question - 0.9.8d fails in make test, 0.9.8k passes in make test.
No comment on this one.
The 1.0.0 beta 3 fails with the SHA1 asm code and in the AES asm code.
I haven't had a chance to
