Would making buf a union also avoid the problem?
union { unsigned long dummy[2]; char buf[DATA_BUF_SIZE]; } d
and then replace 'buf' with 'd.buf' in the code?
On 2/20/18, 12:00 AM, "Viktor Dukhovni" <openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 01:45:26PM -0800, Norm Green wrote:
> # ASN1_LONG_DATA:
> # success: TRUE
> t@1 (l@1) signal BUS (invalid address alignment) in asn1_item_print_ctx at
> line 155 in file "tasn_prn.c"
> 155 || (it->utype != V_ASN1_BOOLEAN)) && *fld == NULL) {
Perhaps aligning the item buffer (by using malloc) will help, does
the patch below address the problem?
diff --git a/test/asn1_encode_test.c b/test/asn1_encode_test.c
index e9f459ad65..77fa9b5954 100644
--- a/test/asn1_encode_test.c
+++ b/test/asn1_encode_test.c
@@ -709,15 +709,19 @@ static int do_encode_custom(EXPECTED *input,
static int do_print_item(const TEST_PACKAGE *package)
{
#define DATA_BUF_SIZE 256
- unsigned char buf[DATA_BUF_SIZE];
const ASN1_ITEM *i = ASN1_ITEM_ptr(package->asn1_type);
- ASN1_VALUE *o = (ASN1_VALUE *)&buf;
+ ASN1_VALUE *o = OPENSSL_malloc(DATA_BUF_SIZE);
int ret;
OPENSSL_assert(package->encode_expectations_elem_size <= DATA_BUF_SIZE);
- (void)RAND_bytes(buf, (int)package->encode_expectations_elem_size);
+ if (o == NULL)
+ return 0;
+
+ (void)RAND_bytes((unsigned char *)o,
+ (int)package->encode_expectations_elem_size);
ret = ASN1_item_print(bio_err, o, 0, i, NULL);
+ OPENSSL_free(o);
return ret;
}
--
Viktor.
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
