On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 17:05:44 GMT, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
>> @jnimeh would you mind running this through your tests? The build failures
>> reported above seem unrelated..
>
> @vpaprotsk regression tests completed successfully on my end.
Thanks @jnimeh
-
PR:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 22:13:07 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> Looks good to me.
>
> @jnimeh would you mind running this through your tests? The build failures
> reported above seem unrelated..
@vpaprotsk regression tests completed successfully on my end.
-
PR:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 22:13:07 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> Looks good to me.
>
> @jnimeh would you mind running this through your tests? The build failures
> reported above seem unrelated..
@vpaprotsk Yes, happy to take it through a regression run on my side. I'll
will run it later
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:49:30 GMT, Jamil Nimeh wrote:
>> Volodymyr Paprotski has updated the pull request with a new target base due
>> to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated
>> changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three
>> additional
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 18:30:04 GMT, Volodymyr Paprotski wrote:
>> Per rfc7539 Section 2.5, "Read the block as a little-endian number."
>>
>> sun.security.util.math.intpoly.IntegerPolynomial1305 enforces this on input
>> when input is provided as `[]byte` but not when input is in `ByteBuffer`
>>
> Per rfc7539 Section 2.5, "Read the block as a little-endian number."
>
> sun.security.util.math.intpoly.IntegerPolynomial1305 enforces this on input
> when input is provided as `[]byte` but not when input is in `ByteBuffer`
>
> Tested with `Poly1305IntrinsicFuzzTest.java` from
>
