Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 08:20:36 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [GSoC] building JtR for MIC

On 2015-03-26 03:22, Lei Zhang wrote:
> HOWEVER, OpenSSL uses this function to rotate 32-bit integers, but
> the signature of _lrotl is: unsigned long _lrotl(unsigned long value,
> int shift);
> 
> On windows 'long' is equivalent to 'int' so there's no problem. But
> on Linux 'long' is 64-bit, and _lrotl will do 64-bit integer rotating
> which is not what OpenSSL wanted. Actually this issue has been
> reported before

> Unfortunately, I failed to build OpenSSL for MIC with version higher
> than 1.0.0. To live with MIC, we can either patch the code of
> OpenSSL-1.0.0, or stick with LibreSSL.

I think it would be neat to provide instructions for both, for completeness.

>> So, yes, given your finding it makes sense for us to transfer to
>> k1om in jumbo.  I'm not sure if I should rename mic.h and the
>> linux-mic make target in the core tree as well.  What do you think?
>> For an end user, this may be a bit confusing.  I think Intel does
>> not use the k1om name.
> 
> This surely is confusing. 'mic' is more intuitive, since it's used
> commercially by Intel. But 'k1om' seems more consistent with those
> GNU tools. I'd vote for using 'k1om' universally, though, for better
> consistency.

I'm fine with either. I slightly prefer keeping the names of the header
and make target, but for no strong reason.

magnum

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ