On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 03:06:38PM -0000, Charles Bryant wrote:
> You write:
> >> The ppc version of bn_mul_comba4 produces an incorrect result because
> >> one of the products added into r[5] is wrong.
> ...
> >Isn't it amazing for how long can a bug go unnoticed? This one was
> >present in original submission from 2004.
>
> Presumably nobody has used the assmbler code for 32-bit ppc.
The Debian package does use ${ppc32_asm}, so should be using it.
> >How did you find that
> >bn_mul_comba4 is broken?
>
> I fed various random inputs into both the C and assembler versions and
> compared them. I think bntest also fails because of this bug
I see no failures in the regression tests for the Debian package.
So I'm guessing that it's not really covered by the regression
tests, and I don't really see it in bntest either.
Kurt
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
