On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 03:45 +0800, Andy Polyakov wrote:
Hi,
This patch adds support to Intel AES-NI instruction set for x86_64
platform.
I apologize for delay.
That's all right.
Promised to comment on submission in question.
Well, after some consideration I reckoned that it would
Hi,
- why full unroll?
Just because the unrolled code is not too long.
As for non-interleaved loop. Reasoning is that folded loop can be
inlined in several places to spare few cycles on call overhead. Of
course this is under premise that it is as fast as unrolled one. Intel
CPUs used to be
If SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ or SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE are returned, the
arguments *must* be *exactly* the same. This includes the data
pointed to by the buffer. There is a way to set a mode on the SSL
connection to allow a moving buffer, but that's it. SSL will not
buffer the data passed to it.
If
Hi All!
I've have some doubts regarding SSL_write in non blocking mode..
1. if SSL_write returned SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE, it is mentioned that the
call has to be repeated with the same arguments.
Does this means the same buffer to be used again?? or the data
passed in the initial SSL_write
*** x509.h.old Mon Feb 23 18:14:36 2009
--- x509.h Mon Feb 23 18:15:00 2009
***
*** 116,121
--- 116,122
/* Under Win32 these are defined in wincrypt.h */
#undef X509_NAME
#undef X509_CERT_PAIR
+ #undef X509_EXTENSIONS
#endif
#define X509_FILETYPE_PEM 1
Hi,
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 16:02 +0800, Andy Polyakov wrote:
Just because the unrolled code is not too long.
As for non-interleaved loop. Reasoning is that folded loop can be
inlined in several places to spare few cycles on call overhead. Of
course this is under premise that it is as fast
Forgive my frustration, but which god do I need to sacrifice to to get some
attention ? Even a go away, we don't care would be OK...
Marc
--
Marc Haisenko
Team Leader and Senior Developer
Comdasys AG
Rüdesheimer Str. 7
80686 München
Germany
Tel.: +49 (0)89 548 433 321
Submit your patch to r...@openssl.org, and it'll go into the request
tracking system. I would also recommend that you wait for a bit more
than a single day before getting irritated with people who work on
this in their spare time, and have day jobs.
-Kyle H
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Marc
On Wednesday 01. April 2009 10:54:39 Kyle Hamilton wrote:
Submit your patch to r...@openssl.org, and it'll go into the request
tracking system. I would also recommend that you wait for a bit more
than a single day before getting irritated with people who work on
this in their spare time, and
I'm only seeing two, the one with the patch and the one with the what
god do you have to sacrifice?.
However, that doesn't mean much of anything, as I'm horrible with
managing my emails.
r...@openssl.org is the best place to send patches, as it creates a
ticket in the Request Tracking system
On Wednesday 01. April 2009 11:03:55 Kyle Hamilton wrote:
I'm only seeing two, the one with the patch and the one with the what
god do you have to sacrifice?.
I was refering to the two threads cited in my patch e-mail:
[1] - http://marc.info/?l=openssl-devm=123754568501758w=2
[2] -
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Marc Haisenko haise...@comdasys.com wrote:
On Wednesday 01. April 2009 11:03:55 Kyle Hamilton wrote:
I was refering to the two threads cited in my patch e-mail:
[1] - http://marc.info/?l=openssl-devm=123754568501758w=2
[2] -
On Wednesday 01. April 2009 11:23:45 Kyle Hamilton wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Marc Haisenko haise...@comdasys.com wrote:
On Wednesday 01. April 2009 11:03:55 Kyle Hamilton wrote:
I was refering to the two threads cited in my patch e-mail:
[1] -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OpenSSL version 1.0.0 Beta 1
OpenSSL - The Open Source toolkit for SSL/TLS
http://www.openssl.org/
OpenSSL is currently in a release cycle. The first beta is now released.
The beta release is available for
I hope the test reports I sent to -bugs are useful. I'm on a Mac OSX
10.5.6 machine, Intel-based, and I ran tests in both 32 and 64 bit
modes, both without and with the optional features. I do not have gmp
installed, nor zlib, so I cannot vouch for their usability; I did not
test krb5, and I
Hi folks,
last week I described a problem with RSA blinding and its locking[1].
Coincidentally another user ran into the same problem in a totally different
scenario, the work-around of disabling the blinding fixed the issue for
him[2].
So here's a patch to fix this issue.
The issue is that
Kyle Hamilton wrote:
I hope the test reports I sent to -bugs are useful. I'm on a Mac OSX
10.5.6 machine, Intel-based, and I ran tests in both 32 and 64 bit
modes, both without and with the optional features. I do not have gmp
installed, nor zlib, so I cannot vouch for their usability; I did
Dear OpenSSL Project Team,
are the DTLS related patches sent by Robin incorporated?
The patches have been reviewed by the original author of
the DTLS implementation and his comments have been incorporated.
We also have successfully done an intop test with Certicom.
Best regards
Michael
On Apr
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Lutz Jaenicke l...@lutz-jaenicke.de wrote:
Hi Kyle,
thank you very much for reports, they are currently sitting in the
moderation queue. I would kindly ask you and other testers to either
* send success messages to the list with just the platform mentioned
*
OpenSSL wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OpenSSL version 1.0.0 Beta 1
Please download and test them as soon as possible. This new OpenSSL
version incorporates 107 documented changes and bugfixes to the
toolkit (for a complete list
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009, Michael Txen wrote:
Dear OpenSSL Project Team,
are the DTLS related patches sent by Robin incorporated?
The patches have been reviewed by the original author of
the DTLS implementation and his comments have been incorporated.
We also have successfully done an intop
Kyle Hamilton wrote:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Lutz Jaenicke l...@lutz-jaenicke.de wrote:
Hi Kyle,
thank you very much for reports, they are currently sitting in the
moderation queue. I would kindly ask you and other testers to either
* send success messages to the list with just
version: openssl-1.0.0-beta1
file: /apps/ts.c
Hi, the TSA module doesn't include standard piece of code before command line
processing:
if (!load_config(bio_err, NULL))
goto end;
so next function
else if ((md = EVP_get_digestbyname(*argv + 1))
Hello,
I've encountered a compile failure of openssl-1.0.0-beta1. Details are
as follows:
# uname -aR
IRIX64 Kazehana 6.5 6.5.30f 07202013 IP35
# cc -v
MIPSpro Compilers: Version 7.4.4m
./Configure --prefix=/usr/nekoware irix-mips3-cc threads
...
cc -DMONOLITH -I.. -I../include
Marc Haisenko wrote:
... Maybe it would be a good idea to document that on the openssl.org
homepage, because before I submitted my patch I was searching the site for
guidelines on how the project wants to have patches submitted, to no avail.
There is no mentioning of a Request Tracker either
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 04:48:01 Marc Haisenko wrote:
Forgive my frustration, but which god do I need to sacrifice to to get
some attention ? Even a go away, we don't care would be OK...
I have your email tagged for attention, but haven't had a good enough
moment to look at it. But please
OK, I've taken a look at this, and scratched my head a little. It's a
touch complicated by the fact that thread-ids have changed in the head
of development relative to what you're looking at in 0.9.8. But I'm now
wondering if you haven't misunderstood the nature of openssl's threading
support;
Fair comment, I'll respond to this as best I can, but this is not any
kind of official statement.
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 14:01:18 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Hi,
I was under the impression that for the 1.0 version you would
change the API so that the ABI doesn't break all the time, and
I see no
On UnixWare 7.1.4
.
cc -DMONOLITH -I.. -I../include -DZLIB_SHARED -DZLIB -DOPENSSL_THREADS
-Kthread -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -Kpentium_pro -D__i386__ -O -DFILIO_H
-Kalloca -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_PART_WORDS -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DSHA1_ASM
-DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DMD5_ASM
29 matches
Mail list logo
