From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Mueller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] DRBG: fix maximum value checks on 32 bit systems Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:40:06 +0200 Message-ID: <12812557.76Zd8kO297@tauon> References: <20140826161456.7ad100e3@canb.auug.org.au> <1471416.zGlxQVbHUr@myon.chronox.de> <20140827133528.GA15871@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from mail.eperm.de ([89.247.134.16]:46965 "EHLO mail.eperm.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934192AbaH0NkL (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:40:11 -0400 Received: from tauon.localnet by mail.eperm.de with [XMail 1.27 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:40:07 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20140827133528.GA15871@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Herbert Xu Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 27. August 2014, 21:35:28 schrieb Herbert Xu: Hi Herbert, >On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:36:54AM +0200, Stephan Mueller wrote: >> The max_addtllen and max_req are defined in drbg_cores[] in >> crypto/drbg.c for each DRBG type. As size_t on a 32 bit system is 32 >> bit the bit shifts would not work either. >> >> Thus, I am wondering whether the just applied patch would need to go >> to Linus >> tree too? I would think that the following patch would be in order: >Have you actually tested this on a 32-bit box? If so and it >actually works then I'd be happy to push it. I will have it tested by tomorrow. > >Cheers, Ciao Stephan