> On Feb 21, 2018, at 11:42 AM, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 21/02/18 09:14 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> On Feb 21, 2018, at 5:06 AM, Andy Polyakov <appro@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> I wonder how come the problem with asn1_encode_test.c went unnoticed so >>> far. Objects on stack are customarily aligned at pointer size, even if >>> their declaration doesn't imply corresponding guarantee. So there are >>> two options here: a) it's first time it's tested with SPARC Solaris cc >>> (note that it is regularly tested on SPARC Linux, naturally with gcc); >>> b) compiler was recently patched/upgraded. Do note that I don't dispute >>> suggested fix (or compiler's "right" to misalign buf in this case), only >>> wonder how come it worked so far. Implied question would be what are >>> other possible implications of b). >> The code introduced the misaligned "bug" is master-only, added in Apr/2017, >> so quite possibly nobody has ever built in SunOS+SPARC, in which case it >> never worked, but simply was never tested until now. > > Pretty sure I have done builds and tests. In fact I am certain of it. Were you testing "master"? Or OpenSSL_1_1_0-stable? The alignment of "buf" is of course compiler-version dependent, and can also change from unrelated later changes in the surrounding code. In any case, the problem code is comparatively recent (less than a year old), and only users testing the master development branch on SPARC would have run into the issue. -- Viktor. -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
