[meta-oe][PATCH v2] nettle: The variable named p in the patch file was incorrectly named.

[meta-oe][PATCH v2] nettle: The variable named p in the patch file was incorrectly named.

[ngutzmann]

The variable in question should have been called ecc->p. The patch has been updated
so that the compilation of the nettle recipe would complete successfully. The backport
originated from this commit https://git.lysator.liu.se/nettle/nettle/commit/c71d2c9d20eeebb985e3872e4550137209e3ce4d

Signed-off-by: ngutzmann <nathangutzmann@gmail.com>
---
 meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle-2.7.1/CVE-2015-8803_8805.patch | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle-2.7.1/CVE-2015-8803_8805.patch b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle-2.7.1/CVE-2015-8803_8805.patch
index 1c4b9a9..a956f42 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle-2.7.1/CVE-2015-8803_8805.patch
+++ b/meta/recipes-support/nettle/nettle-2.7.1/CVE-2015-8803_8805.patch
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ Index: nettle-2.7.1/ecc-256.c
        u1 -= cy;
 -      u1 += cnd_add_n (t, rp + n - 4, ecc->p, 3);
 +
-+      cy = cnd_add_n (t, rp + n - 4, p->m, 2);
++      cy = cnd_add_n (t, rp + n - 4, ecc->p, 2);
 +      u0 += cy;
 +      u1 += (u0 < cy);
        u1 -= (-t) & 0xffffffff;
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [meta-oe][PATCH v2] nettle: The variable named p in the patch file was incorrectly named.

[Joshua G Lock]

On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 09:17 -0700, ngutzmann wrote:
> The variable in question should have been called ecc->p. The patch
> has been updated
> so that the compilation of the nettle recipe would complete
> successfully. The backport
> originated from this commit
> https://git.lysator.liu.se/nettle/nettle/commit/c71d2c9d20eeebb985e38
> 72e4550137209e3ce4d

Thanks a lot for this patch, I've just proposed it for inclusion in the
Fido branch.

I missed this originally because it's not tagged fido, for future it's
worth pointing out that in order to be sure patches for stable branches
are noticed by the maintainers we request the subject is prefixed with
[branchname].

Thanks again for your contribution.

Joshua