On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 04:26:53PM +0200, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > 1.0.2 beta2 has a testsuite failure on sparc:
> > Testing cipher CAMELLIA-192-OFB(encrypt)
> > Key
> > 0000 8e 73 b0 f7 da 0e 64 52 c8 10 f3 2b 80 90 79 e5
> > 0010 62 f8 ea d2 52 2c 6b 7b
> > IV
> > 0000 52 ef 01 da 52 60 2f e0 97 5f 78 ac 84 bf 8a 50
> > Plaintext
> > 0000 30 c8 1Makefile:149: recipe for target 'test_evp' failed
> > make[2]: Leaving directory '/«PKGBUILDDIR»/test'
> > Makefile:455: recipe for target 'tests' failed
> > 
> > I didn't see that problem with beta 1.
> 
> I assume we are talking about Linux. But what is your hardware (T4 or
> earlier)? Compiler? Configuration parameters? Thing is that I can't
> reproduce this on T4 (with or without hardware-assisted Camellia), not
> in 32- nor 64-bit builds. System is equipped with gcc 4.6.3. What's
> strange is that fails in OFB, which means that earlier Camellia ECB,
> CBC, CFB tests pass. Which in turn means that there is nothing what with
> Camellia code itself, and it has to be ofb128.o. But it was tested with
> AES earlier in this test...

I was suspecting a compiler bug, I've looked at the assembler
before, it looked wrong to me, but don't know enough about sparc.
So I actually retried this a few days ago and it worked now.

It was on a different machine, but with the same type of CPU:
cpu             : TI UltraSparc IIIi (Jalapeno)
fpu             : UltraSparc IIIi integrated FPU
pmu             : ultra3i
prom            : OBP 4.11.4 2003/07/23 08:04
type            : sun4u

It failed with Debian's gcc 4.9.0-9, worked with 4.9.1-5.

It looked to me like it generated code for memcpy() wrong.

I'm just going to assume it's a compiler bug, feel free to close
it.  But if you really want I can try to look at the differences
in assembler.


Kurt


______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [email protected]
Automated List Manager                           [email protected]

Reply via email to