Re: [openssl-dev] [RFC PATCH] doc/ssl: describe the possible DoS via repeated SSL session re-negotiation

2016-08-11 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-08-11 18:04:41 [+0200], Hubert Kario wrote: > On Thursday, 11 August 2016 13:50:53 CEST Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > On 2016-08-11 11:34:24 [+0200], Hubert Kario wrote: > > > it all depends on the environment, in some renegotiation is completely > > > unnecessary (public HTTP

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4641] [openssl-1.1.0-pre6] make test stops with solaris64-x86_64-gcc

2016-08-11 Thread Andy Polyakov via RT
Hi, > I have no time to check with debugger now, Then no progress will be made. Problem needs to be identified first, and since similar problem was identified earlier, I'd have to insist on confirmation whether or not it's the same. > but I do not think it is caused by assembler, > because, > -

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4584] Self test failures under X32

2016-08-11 Thread Matt Caswell via RT
On 11/08/16 13:29, Andy Polyakov via RT wrote: >> ( cd test; \ >> SRCTOP=../. \ >> BLDTOP=../. \ >> PERL="perl" \ >> EXE_EXT= \ >> OPENSSL_ENGINES=.././engines \ >> perl .././test/run_tests.pl test_afalg ) >> ../test/recipes/30-test_afalg.t .. >> 1..1 >> ALG_PERR:

Re: [openssl-dev] [RFC PATCH] doc/ssl: describe the possible DoS via repeated SSL session re-negotiation

2016-08-11 Thread Hubert Kario
On Thursday, 11 August 2016 13:50:53 CEST Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-08-11 11:34:24 [+0200], Hubert Kario wrote: > > it all depends on the environment, in some renegotiation is completely > > unnecessary (public HTTP servers without client certificate based > > authentication), in

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4641] [openssl-1.1.0-pre6] make test stops with solaris64-x86_64-gcc

2016-08-11 Thread Kiyoshi KANAZAWA via RT
Hello, I have no time to check with debugger now, but I do not think it is caused by assembler, because, - gcc-5.4.0 with gas (GNU Binutils) 2.27 - cc (Solaris developerstudio12.5) with /usr/ccs/bin/as have the same result (see openssl.org #4642 also). perl version which I use is v5.24.0.

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4584] Self test failures under X32

2016-08-11 Thread Andy Polyakov via RT
> ( cd test; \ > SRCTOP=../. \ > BLDTOP=../. \ > PERL="perl" \ > EXE_EXT= \ > OPENSSL_ENGINES=.././engines \ > perl .././test/run_tests.pl test_afalg ) > ../test/recipes/30-test_afalg.t .. > 1..1 > ALG_PERR: afalg_fin_cipher_aio: io_read failed : Bad address >

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #4641] [openssl-1.1.0-pre6] make test stops with solaris64-x86_64-gcc

2016-08-11 Thread Andy Polyakov via RT
Hi, > make test stops on Solaris10 x64. > > > % ./Configure solaris64-x86_64-gcc > > % make > % make test >: > ../test/recipes/01-test_abort.t ok > ../test/recipes/01-test_sanity.t ... ok > ../test/recipes/01-test_symbol_presence.t .. ok >

Re: [openssl-dev] OpenSSL 1.1.0 pre 6: SPARCv9 capability bits problem

2016-08-11 Thread Andy Polyakov
> The following change introduced build problems: > >> +if (vec[1]&0x8) OPENSSL_sparcv9cap_P[0] |= SPARCV9_VIS4; > > ... here we use vec[1], so the compiler warns: > > crypto/sparcv9cap.c:179:20: warning: array subscript is above array > bounds [-Warray-bounds] >

Re: [openssl-dev] [RFC PATCH] doc/ssl: describe the possible DoS via repeated SSL session re-negotiation

2016-08-11 Thread Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
On 2016-08-11 11:34:24 [+0200], Hubert Kario wrote: > it all depends on the environment, in some renegotiation is completely > unnecessary (public HTTP servers without client certificate based > authentication), in others just client-initiated renegotiation is needed > (typical configuration

Re: [openssl-dev] [RFC PATCH] doc/ssl: describe the possible DoS via repeated SSL session re-negotiation

2016-08-11 Thread Hubert Kario
On Tuesday, 9 August 2016 21:51:32 CEST Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2016-08-09 19:26:44 [+], Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:18:58PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > > I don't really know what I am supposed to do with this information. Do > > > you