This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH #14090] md5_process_block() produces incorrect resultwith large block sizes
On 05/24/2012 08:11 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Ping, what should be done with these two patches?
Your email had just one patch, which unfortunately
was incorrect because it has no effect even on hypothetical
hosts with 128-bit size_t, as its expression
((uint64_t) len>> 63>> 1) is always zero.
I just now attached a corrected sha512.c patch to
the report for bug#14090. The two non-obsolete patches that
are now attached to that bug report should both
be applied, though I hope somebody can test them
first -- I haven't even compiled them, much less