Closed
Bug 1276618
Opened 8 years ago
Closed 8 years ago
Follow-up to SHA-384 cipher suite patches
Categories
(NSS :: Libraries, defect)
NSS
Libraries
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
3.25
People
(Reporter: ttaubert, Assigned: ttaubert)
References
Details
Attachments
(1 file, 2 obsolete files)
3.45 KB,
patch
|
mt
:
review+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
I reviewed https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/3522552c289a again and think I found two issues that should be fixed. Although they don't seem to fix/break any existing tests.
Assignee | ||
Comment 1•8 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8757854 -
Flags: review?(martin.thomson)
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•8 years ago
|
||
Some more cleanup.
Attachment #8757854 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8757854 -
Flags: review?(martin.thomson)
Attachment #8757908 -
Flags: review?(martin.thomson)
Assignee | ||
Comment 3•8 years ago
|
||
Attachment #8757908 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #8757908 -
Flags: review?(martin.thomson)
Comment 4•8 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 8757918 [details] [diff] [review]
0001-Bug-1276618-A-few-cleanups-after-the-landing-of-SHA-.patch, v3
Review of attachment 8757918 [details] [diff] [review]:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yikes, those are pretty bad :)
::: lib/ssl/ssl3con.c
@@ -4750,5 @@
> {
> PRUint8 serialized[2];
> SECOidTag hashAlg = ssl3_TLSHashAlgorithmToOID(sigAndHash->hashAlg);
> if (hashAlg == SEC_OID_UNKNOWN) {
> - PORT_Assert(hashAlg != SEC_OID_UNKNOWN);
I wonder, what do you think the rules need to be here? This was in the SHA-384 patch, and I thought that it was OK.
Attachment #8757918 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•8 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Martin Thomson [:mt:] from comment #4)
> ::: lib/ssl/ssl3con.c
> @@ -4750,5 @@
> > {
> > PRUint8 serialized[2];
> > SECOidTag hashAlg = ssl3_TLSHashAlgorithmToOID(sigAndHash->hashAlg);
> > if (hashAlg == SEC_OID_UNKNOWN) {
> > - PORT_Assert(hashAlg != SEC_OID_UNKNOWN);
>
> I wonder, what do you think the rules need to be here? This was in the
> SHA-384 patch, and I thought that it was OK.
I found it harder to read than PORT_Assert(0), and if the condition ever changes we wouldn't need to touch the code in the branch. Guess I also don't really like the repetition here :)
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•8 years ago
|
||
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 8 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → 3.25
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•8 years ago
|
||
tls13con.c:383:17: error: variable ‘hashType’ set but not used [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/nss/rev/d46591f44da4
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•