As discussed in the meeting today,
I'd like to have my PR
Remove x86/x86_64 BSAES and AES_ASM support #9677
be approved soon, as it is holding up other
work I plan to do.
Thanks
Bernd.
the correct prefix with spaces, as they
are in Windows.
Can that one at least considered for inclusion?
Thanks
Bernd.
On 3/26/20 9:13 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>
> On 3/26/20 9:10 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
>> We don't guarantee constant time.
>>
>
> #11411 does,
reason for this?
Bernd.
> Tim.
>
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, 5:41 am Bernd Edlinger,
> wrote:
>
>> So I disagree, it is a bug when it is not constant time.
>>
>>
>> On 3/26/20 8:26 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
>>> +1 for a release - and soon - and without bundling a
So I disagree, it is a bug when it is not constant time.
On 3/26/20 8:26 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
> +1 for a release - and soon - and without bundling any more changes. The
> circumstances justify getting this fix out. But I also think we need to
> keep improvements that aren't bug fixes out of
On 3/26/20 3:14 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has
> resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch
> (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400).
>
> Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit of stuff, I
On 3/26/20 3:14 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has
> resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch
> (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400).
>
> Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit of stuff,
will we release today?
On 9/9/19 5:31 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> Richard has just frozen the repo in advance of the releases tomorrow.
>
> There are still some PRs outstanding that we are expecting to be included and
> I
> will push as they become available:
>
>
>
On 9/9/19 5:31 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
> Richard has just frozen the repo in advance of the releases tomorrow.
>
> There are still some PRs outstanding that we are expecting to be included and
> I
> will push as they become available:
>
>
> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/9777
> Fix a
./config -fkeep-inline-functions && make
-> build fails with unresolved externals in test/rsa_complex and
test/shlibloadtest
On 1/27/19 2:23 PM, Dr Paul Dale wrote:
> Yes, those are the problematic cases. I think that making the symbols weak
> is “good enough” for the moment. Longer term, we
Hi,
I just read this in the blog article: New OMC Member and New Committers
https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2018/08/22/updates/
"The latest additions to the committers (in alphabetical order) are:
Paul Yang
Nicola Tuveri
"
aehm, maybe we should fix the alphabetical order ? :-)
On 06/11/18 17:40, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message <8ee45344-9bfc-44f9-9db2-c384f7645...@akamai.com> on Mon, 11 Jun
> 2018 15:25:23 +, "Salz, Rich" said:
>
> rsalz> >*must* do when getting '-pass8bit' is to do a naïve UTF-8 encode
> of
> rsalz> the input pass phrase string.
On 04/15/18 07:53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 15, 2018, at 1:38 AM, Richard Levitte wrote:
>>
>> Errr, are we? Please inform me, because I cannot remember having seen
>> tests that specifically targets the case of programs built with 1.1.0
>> that get implicitly
On 04/08/18 09:49, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 08, 2018 at 07:15:32AM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
>> In message <20180407185034.ga25...@roeckx.be> on Sat, 7 Apr 2018 20:50:35
>> +0200, Kurt Roeckx said:
>>
>> kurt> > In going from 1.1.0 to 1.1.1, breaking platforms that
OK, I freezed the repository for you.
On 03/19/18 19:25, Matt Caswell wrote:
> Please can someone freeze the repo for me:
>
> $ ssh openssl-...@git.openssl.org freeze openssl matt
>
> I will still take #5677 "Fix no-sm3 (and no-sm2)" after the freeze. Also
> if anyone can come up with a fix for
On 03/08/18 12:06, Andy Polyakov wrote:
>
>> Andy pointed out that my last e-mail was probably not clear enough.
>>
>> I want to drop the current partially overlapping checks
>> on the WRAP mode ciphers (which were ineffective anyways).
>>
>> And allow the following additional use case for any
ion of allowed in-place partially overlapping
effectively be driven by the implementation requirements.
Bernd.
On 03/03/18 13:25, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 03/01/18 10:59, Andy Polyakov wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to request more opinions on
>>>>> https://github.com/op
16 matches
Mail list logo