On 06/04/2014 04:58 PM, Mike Bland wrote:
Thanks to a few brave volunteers and the support of the core OpenSSL
team, it looks like we can begin moving on this effort soon. I've
begun to document the current state of things on the wiki:
http://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Unit_Testing
There's
Hi Reini,
Actually, I was asking for thoughts on whether to create a separate
openssl-testing mailing list, which I'm leaning towards at the moment,
as I plan to get very chatty with the volunteers helping with unit
testing.
That said, I've limited experience with valgrind. Are you volunteering
Thanks to a few brave volunteers and the support of the core OpenSSL
team, it looks like we can begin moving on this effort soon. I've
begun to document the current state of things on the wiki:
http://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Unit_Testing
There's lots to discuss with regard to the Goals,
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:38:05AM -0400, Mike Bland wrote:
It seems that the encryption algorithms themselves are relatively
well-tested; in contrast, Heartbleed was an infrastructure bug. It's
in shoring up the test coverage of the infrastructure bits where I can
be of most direct service,
On 04/06/14 23:29, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:38:05AM -0400, Mike Bland wrote:
It seems that the encryption algorithms themselves are relatively
well-tested; in contrast, Heartbleed was an infrastructure bug. It's
in shoring up the test coverage of the infrastructure bits
On 2 June 2014 15:38, Mike Bland mbl...@acm.org wrote:
My goal would be to help everyone learn to fish, to use the tired
cliché. I currently have very little knowledge of the OpenSSL code
base or community, and I don't have a ton of time to do all the heavy
lifting by myself; nor do I think
[mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Caswell
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2014 8:23 PM
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: Improving unit/automated test coverage
On 2 June 2014 15:38, Mike Bland mbl...@acm.org wrote:
My goal would be to help everyone learn to fish, to use
