On 16-10-14 15:29, Christian Hesse wrote:
Arran Cudbard-Bell <a.cudbardb@freeradius.org> on Thu, 2014/10/16 09:14:
On 16 Oct 2014, at 06:15, Christian Hesse <list@eworm.de> wrote:
From: Christian Hesse <mail@eworm.de>
When doing bitwise AND leading zeros do not matter, trailing ones do.
That's not all you changed, the mask bits are different, why?
I think I changed it to how it was intended. The update from openssl 1.0.1i to 1.0.1j broke my system again as wrong bits were compared.
These are the correct masks:
0x0000000f -> status 0x00000ff0 -> patch 0x000ff000 -> fix 0x0ff00000 -> minor 0xf0000000 -> major
Or did I miss anything?
The format is described in ssleay(3) and copied in the code above the function that's been updated: OpenSSL version number consists of: MMNNFFPPS: major minor fix patch status So it's actually 0xff0000000 to get the major version (although it may take a while before we'll actually get to version 16 ;)) and for readability, the other ones should have an extra 0 at the beginning. The first line of the patch (the status mismatch check) should be left as it is now. The rest of the code looks to me like a confusion between big-endian and little-endian. The patch set looks pretty sane to me, as long as the extra 0 or f is added. I haven't tested if the endianness is actually the same as the documentation suggests. -- Herwin Weststrate