From: Andy Polyakov <appro@fy.chalmers.se>
To: openssl-dev@openssl.org
Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: PPC bn_div_words routine rewrite
Date: Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:49:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42CB0084.4000307@fy.chalmers.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4dd15d180507051425589dbf69@mail.gmail.com>
> Okay, having actually did what Andy suggested, i.e. the one liner fix
> in the assembly code, bn_div_words returns the correct results.
Note that the final version, one committed to all relevant OpenSSL
branches since couple of days ago and one which actually made to just
released 0.9.8, is a bit different from originally suggested one-line
fix, see for example http://cvs.openssl.org/chngview?cn=14199.
> At this point, my conclusion is, up to openssl-0.9.8-beta6, the ppc32
> bn_div_words routine generated from crypto/bn/ppc.pl is still busted.
Yes. Though it should be noted that 0.9.8 was inadvertently avoiding the
bug condition. Recall that original problem report was for 0.9.7.
> Why do you signal an overflow condition when it appears functions that
> call bn_div_words do not check for overflow conditions?
That's question to IBM. By the time they submitted the code, I've
explicitly asked what would be appropriate way to generate *fatal*
condition at that point, i.e. one which would result in a core dump, and
it came out as division by 0 instruction. By that time I had no access
to any PPC machine and had to just go with it. Now it actually came as
surprise that division by 0 does not raise an exception, but silently
returns implementation-specific value... A.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-05 21:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <19EE6EC66973A5408FBE4CB7772F6F0A02C8770E@ltnmail.xyplex.com>
[not found] ` <4dd15d1805070508312427a0ba@mail.gmail.com>
2005-07-05 15:45 ` Fwd: PPC bn_div_words routine rewrite David Ho
2005-07-05 16:36 ` David Ho
2005-07-05 17:01 ` David Ho
2005-07-05 20:21 ` David Ho
2005-07-05 21:22 ` Andy Polyakov
2005-07-05 21:25 ` David Ho
2005-07-05 21:49 ` Andy Polyakov [this message]
[not found] <4dd15d1805063003587276af7e@mail.gmail.com>
2005-06-30 22:22 ` David Ho
2005-07-01 17:36 ` Andy Polyakov
2005-07-04 14:35 ` David Ho
2005-07-05 15:00 ` Andy Polyakov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42CB0084.4000307@fy.chalmers.se \
--to=appro@fy.chalmers.se \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org \
--cc=openssl-dev@openssl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.