FWIW. We have a similar problem on AIX with the capability probes there. The debugger has an 'ignore' option - which allows us to bypass the sigill traps.
I can understand the logic of not probing for an instruction that'll never exist, but some archictectures you WILL hit this problem as there's no other way to do capability probes in user space code. All you can do there is hope the debugger has some way of coping.
Peter
Peter
-----owner-openssl-...@openssl.org wrote: -----
To: David Miller <da...@davemloft.net>
From: Dan Anderson
Sent by: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org
Date: 12/22/2013 03:37PM
Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #3202] Request to remove _sparcv9_random
From: Dan Anderson
Sent by: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org
Date: 12/22/2013 03:37PM
Cc: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl.org #3202] Request to remove _sparcv9_random
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
> 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
