On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 01:20:29PM +0000, Taylor R Campbell wrote: > Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:01:16 +0200 > From: Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 05:01:58AM +0000, matthew green wrote: > > replace the previous hack with something that i believe is actually > > correct and, more importantly ;), works properly. > > This is still broken by assuming alignment, isn't it? > > The code certainly doesn't make itself easy to audit with all its > superfluous casting, but after ten minutes of reading I haven't found > any cases of misaligned access.
Right, I reached the same conclusion going around all the users, but that doesn't make the code less questionable. It certainly doesn't make it "correct" :) > Now, I would ding this code because it is written to resist auditing > and provides no advantage over the much simpler and faster and > smaller-cache-footprint poly1305, but that's independent of whether or > not mrg@ eliminated this particular no-strict-aliasing hack. I somehow can't disagree with this, even if I wanted to try ;) Joerg
