On 12/21/2013 7:07 PM, David Miller via RT wrote:
From: Dan Anderson <dan.ander...@oracle.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:54:52 -0800
I think we need to clarify why this should be done. The SPARC "random"
instruction was designed at Sun Microsystems (now Oracle Corporation)
for a never-released processor several years ago. For SPARC,
randomness is obtained by reading a special control register. The
SPARC "random" instruction was never implemented and never will be
implemented. Please remove code to detect this instruction. Thanks!
The patch was presented as a way to get rid of SIGILL dropping the
application into the debugger.
True, but forget this for the sake of argument.
The same problem is going to exist if people run this library on
chips without the crypto instructions, or other ones we check for.
You are checking for a SPARC instruction that was never implemented, is
not on any SPARC processor, and never will exist.
All I'm suggesting is to not check for this instruction.
Dan
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
--
uosบǝpuɐ uɐp dan.ander...@oracle.com, Oracle Solaris, San Diego, +1 858-526-9418
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
