On 7.7.2014 16:16, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
On Mon Jul 07 10:31:21 2014, pspa...@redhat.com wrote:
In the previous e-mail you were talking about integration into EVP. Do
I
understand correctly that I should fix those "low-level" patches and
you will
integrate them to EVP?
Yes I'll handle that side. It's not too hard but tricky if you're unfamiliar
with EVP.
There are a few problems with the patches as supplied. There are
several
warnings when use the --strict-warnings option to see what they are.
I'm attaching patch to fix them, I hope I didn't miss anything.
I have pushed the same patch to:
https://github.com/spacekpe/openssl/commit/63ae6c9335c2a86cf1cad904baefc610e25d335b
OK thanks I'll review that.
evp_test.c .I'm not sure how portable uiint32_t is either.
AFAIK it is part of C99. 'grep' told me that it was used in bio/bio.h
so I
took inspiration from there.
I can re-write it as necessary but I would like to know which way do
you prefer?
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find universal uint32 equivalent used
across
code base.
The part in bio.h is surrounded by #ifndef OPENSSL_NO_SCTP and no-sctp (which
sets that define) is the default so that part by default isn't compiled.
If you require a type that is unsigned and guaranteed to be at least 32 bits
then unsigned int will work but that might not be necessary, I'll check how you
are using it.
Thanks. I need exactly 32 bits to encode/decode IV+data length. (RFC 5649
combines IV and data length in one 32 bit field.)
I think we should avoid having a htonl dependency in the code if
possible. It's
not hard to avoid that.
Sure, I can avoid that, I simply took inspiration from
crypto/bio/b_sock.c.
Well OpenSSL is sometimes compiled and used in places without socket support
and I wouldn't like to have a socket dependency in the cipher code.
Understood. I will be rework patches as necessary.
What is the preferred way for this case?
I have seen construction like
const union { long one; char little; } is_endian = {1};
if (is_endian.little)
...
couple times in the code. Is this the preferred way?
I'm not sure there is a preferred way as such. In a few places combinations of
shifts and bitwise operations are used between an unsigned int and a four byte
array.
I'll have a look to see what seems appropriate in this case.
I will be really glad if you could recommend me approach appropriate for this
case.
Thank you for your time!
--
Petr Spacek @ Red Hat
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
