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

[Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>]

Hello Nathan,

On 08.03.2016 22:49, 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.
> 
> 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;
> 

looks good to me. However, I needed to lookup the commit where the
backport originated from, because the reason for exchanging m and p
isn't obvious at all without knowing the original commit. Maybe you
could include it in your commit message.

https://git.lysator.liu.se/nettle/nettle/commit/c71d2c9d20eeebb985e3872e4550137209e3ce4d

Regards,
Andreas