On Apr 24, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Daniel Mentz via RT wrote:
> Robin Seggelmann via RT wrote:
>> #define RSMBLY_BITMASK_IS_COMPLETE(bitmask, msg_len, is_complete) { \
>
>> +if (is_complete) for (ii = (((msg_len) - 1) >> 3) - 1;
>> ii > 0 ; ii--) \
>
> I'm wondering if there are
Robin Seggelmann via RT wrote:
> #define RSMBLY_BITMASK_IS_COMPLETE(bitmask, msg_len, is_complete) { \
> + if (is_complete) for (ii = (((msg_len) - 1) >> 3) - 1;
> ii > 0 ; ii--) \
I'm wondering if there are two issues with this for loop:
1. It fails to check if bitmask[0]
Robin Seggelmann via RT wrote:
> + for (ii = (((start) >> 3) + 1); ii < (((end -
> 1)) >> 3); ii++) bitmask[ii] = 0xff; \
I guess there's a minor mistake:
I recommend to replace
(((end - 1)) >> 3)
with
(((end) - 1) >> 3)
-Daniel
_
There is still a bug in the bitmask macros, reported by Daniel Mentz. While
checking if the message is complete a read might occur beyond the bitmask
array. This is fixed with this patch and the check is now also done backwards
which should be faster usually.
Regards,
Robin
--- ssl/d1_both.c
