Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5423 I wonder how come the problem with asn1_encode_test.c went unnoticed so far. Objects on stack are customarily aligned at pointer size, even if their declaration doesn't imply corresponding guarantee. So there are two options here: a) it's first time

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

> Interesting comment : > > > Solaris x86 with Sun C setups >     # There used to be solaris-x86-cc target, but it was removed, >     # primarily because vendor assembler can't assemble our modules >     # with -KPIC flag. As result it, assembly support, was not even >     # available as

Re: [openssl-users] OpenSSL Version Definitions Issue on ARM

On 21/02/18 01:19, Andrei Danaila wrote: > Any insight would be greatly appreciated. > All OpenSSL versions before 1.1.0 provide no symbol version information. However Debian distribute a patched version of OpenSSL that adds this - so this is why you will see a difference between your system

Re: [openssl-users] Windows 1.1.1 binaries and web server

This is very useful! Can you post an udate to the wiki? https://wiki.openssl.org/index.php/Binaries On 2/21/18, 8:57 AM, "Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd" wrote: Windows developers may be interested in our Win32 build of OpenSSL 1.1.1-pre1 (alpha), the

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:06 AM, Andy Polyakov wrote: > > I wonder how come the problem with asn1_encode_test.c went unnoticed so > far. Objects on stack are customarily aligned at pointer size, even if > their declaration doesn't imply corresponding guarantee. So there are >

Re: [openssl-users] DTLS server records repeated

On 21/02/18 21:38, Michael Richardson wrote: > > I'm capturing from my DTLS client and server, with CoAP running on top. > I've been debugging some ruby-level I/O buffering issues. > I noticed this while capturing, and used tshark to get this print out. > (I've added columns for port numbers) >

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

>> And "the default for all v9 architectures is -xmemalign=8s". > I'm getting confused.  Since I did not specify -xmemalign at all, And not specifying -xmemalign is equivalent of specifying 8s in 64-bit build such as one in question. > why > did the test fail with SIGBUS in the first place? 

Re: [openssl-users] compilation error with openssl-1.1.0 and DH_get0_key

Thanks for suggestion, don't understand why the compiler didn't complain about the first argument. Unfortunately, that just brings out other problem code: bool DHWrapper::CopyPublicKey(uint8_t *pDst, int32_t dstLength) { if (_pDH == NULL) { FATAL("DHWrapper not initialized");

Re: [openssl-users] compilation error with openssl-1.1.0 and DH_get0_key

On 02/21/2018 10:16 AM, Robert Watson wrote: > I'm trying to update a crypto library for crtmpserver to work with > openssl 1.1.0.  The software is no longer actively maintained and my > c++ skills are somewhat rudimentary but I keep getting a compilation > error for something that seems trivial.

[openssl-users] compilation error with openssl-1.1.0 and DH_get0_key

I'm trying to update a crypto library for crtmpserver to work with openssl 1.1.0. The software is no longer actively maintained and my c++ skills are somewhat rudimentary but I keep getting a compilation error for something that seems trivial. Here's the code snippet: bool

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

On 21/02/18 09:14 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:06 AM, Andy Polyakov wrote: I wonder how come the problem with asn1_encode_test.c went unnoticed so far. Objects on stack are customarily aligned at pointer size, even if their declaration doesn't imply

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

> On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > On 21/02/18 09:14 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:06 AM, Andy Polyakov wrote: >>> >>> I wonder how come the problem with asn1_encode_test.c went unnoticed so >>> far.

Re: [openssl-users] compilation error with openssl-1.1.0 and DH_get0_key

On 21/02/18 16:20, Benjamin Kaduk via openssl-users wrote: > On 02/21/2018 10:16 AM, Robert Watson wrote: >> I'm trying to update a crypto library for crtmpserver to work with >> openssl 1.1.0.  The software is no longer actively maintained and my >> c++ skills are somewhat rudimentary but I

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

On 21/02/18 12:11 PM, Norm Green wrote: > On 2/21/2018 8:42 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: >> Pretty sure I have done builds and tests. In fact I am certain of it. > > If you added -xmemalign=8s to the SPARC compiler flags (as shown in one > of your emails from yesterday) then you would not see the

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

On 2/21/2018 8:42 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: Pretty sure I have done builds and tests. In fact I am certain of it. If you added -xmemalign=8s to the SPARC compiler flags (as shown in one of your emails from yesterday) then you would not see the problem.  -xmemalign=8s forces the compiler to

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

On 21/02/18 12:57 PM, Norm Green wrote: On 2/21/2018 9:42 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: Which is correct way to do this on sparc systems. Why do you say that?  We've been building OpenSSL on SPARC for the past 7 years without that flag and it's worked just fine with only a few minor changes to

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

On 21/02/18 12:57 PM, Norm Green wrote: On 2/21/2018 9:42 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: Which is correct way to do this on sparc systems. Why do you say that?  We've been building OpenSSL on SPARC for the past 7 years without that flag and it's worked just fine with only a few minor changes to

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

On 2/21/2018 9:42 AM, Dennis Clarke wrote: Which is correct way to do this on sparc systems. Why do you say that?  We've been building OpenSSL on SPARC for the past 7 years without that flag and it's worked just fine with only a few minor changes to the compile/link flags. Norm --

Re: [openssl-users] Has client validated successfully?

On 2/20/2018 9:34 AM, J Decker wrote: > Client does a verification and passes or fails, and via the SSL layer > I can query if the client validated the certificate. > If it failed, provide a option for the client to get a renewed > certificate for verification.  If success, no action. > If an

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

> So really we could do all manner of nasty things here and watch all > manner of performance results and cool coredumps and it would be fun to > try.  However the option -xmemalign=8s will enforce "There should be no > misaligned accesses in the program". And "the default for all v9

[openssl-users] DTLS server records repeated

I'm capturing from my DTLS client and server, with CoAP running on top. I've been debugging some ruby-level I/O buffering issues. I noticed this while capturing, and used tshark to get this print out. (I've added columns for port numbers) 2 66.009171 ::2 35345 ::2 5684

Re: [openssl-users] 1.1.1 pre1 tests failing on Solaris SPARC

On 2/21/2018 12:46 PM, Andy Polyakov wrote: And "the default for all v9 architectures is -xmemalign=8s". I'm getting confused.  Since I did not specify -xmemalign at all, why did the test fail with SIGBUS in the first place?  Seems like there should have been no alignment problem if the