On Tue 2015-09-15 14:10:57 -0400, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:47:39PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> >
>> > It looks to me like the hang is happening in the code that calibrates
>> > the s2k count in the agen
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:47:39PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> >
> > It looks to me like the hang is happening in the code that calibrates
> > the s2k count in the agent. (from agent/protect.c)
> >
> > I've tried to extract th
On Tue 2015-09-15 13:02:29 -0400, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:53:39PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On Tue 2015-09-15 11:14:17 -0400, Werner Koch wrote:
>> > Good, that works. However, the actual burn_cycles code is more like:
>> >
>> > static int
>> > burn_cycles(unsign
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:53:39PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Tue 2015-09-15 11:14:17 -0400, Werner Koch wrote:
> > Good, that works. However, the actual burn_cycles code is more like:
> >
> > static int
> > burn_cycles(unsigned long count)
> > {
> > char buffer[16];
> > return gcr
On Tue 2015-09-15 11:14:17 -0400, Werner Koch wrote:
> Good, that works. However, the actual burn_cycles code is more like:
>
> static int
> burn_cycles(unsigned long count)
> {
> char buffer[16];
> return gcry_kdf_derive ("123456789abcdef0", 16,
> GCRY_KDF_ITERSALTED
Hi!
Good, that works. However, the actual burn_cycles code is more like:
static int
burn_cycles(unsigned long count)
{
char buffer[16];
return gcry_kdf_derive ("123456789abcdef0", 16,
GCRY_KDF_ITERSALTED_S2K,
GCR_MD_SHA1, "saltsalt", 8,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:47:39PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
> It looks to me like the hang is happening in the code that calibrates
> the s2k count in the agent. (from agent/protect.c)
>
> I've tried to extract the logic from this code and make a simple
> executable that just does it (
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:47:39PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Running it locally for me looks like this:
>
> 0 dkg@alice:~/src/pkg-gnupg/bugs/789246$ make
> gcc -Wall -Werror --pedantic -o test-csail test-csail.c
> 0 dkg@alice:~/src/pkg-gnupg/bugs/789246$ ./test-csail
> S2K calibration:
On Mon 2015-09-14 12:24:45 -0400, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 09:47:25AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On Sun 2015-09-13 17:23:01 -0400, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 05:08:52PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> >> In the meantime, is it possible to give
On Wed, Jul 08, 2015 at 09:42:14AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Tue 2015-06-30 18:37:05 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > looking at the test that it seems to hang on (agent/t-protect), i tried
> > running it on my own machine and got the attached strace. (it completes
> > quickly)
>
On Tue 2015-06-30 18:37:05 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> looking at the test that it seems to hang on (agent/t-protect), i tried
> running it on my own machine and got the attached strace. (it completes
> quickly)
>
> we checked with Q_, who looked at the buildd, and it's definitely
> hangin
On Tue 2015-06-30 15:39:18 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Control: tags 789246 + moreinfo help
>
> On Fri 2015-06-19 02:09:20 -0400, Daniel Baumann wrote:
>> gnupg2 fails to build on amd64:
>> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gnupg2&arch=amd64&ver=2.1.5-1&stamp=1434056203
>
> yep
Control: tags 789246 + moreinfo help
On Fri 2015-06-19 02:09:20 -0400, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> gnupg2 fails to build on amd64:
> https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gnupg2&arch=amd64&ver=2.1.5-1&stamp=1434056203
yep, we're aware of this, but (a) it doesn't fail on my own amd64
machines
13 matches
Mail list logo
