gnunet-developers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I think I have fixed it somehow.


From: Martin Schanzenbach
Subject: Re: I think I have fixed it somehow.
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2020 07:20:35 +0900
User-agent: Evolution 3.38.1 (3.38.1-1.fc33)

Well, good catch ;)

I agree with David that this very likely was not the issue.
We all are on LE systems (unless you have an old powerbook or a
sparc?). Which means that the only reason why that assert may fail is
if the caller forgot to convert the size field to BE.

My money is on this: Your change to the gnunet_crypto_lib.h header
triggered a recompile of most of the gnunet code. This fixed some
binary-level inconsistencies which caused the tests to fail.

BR
Martin
 
On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 16:24 +0100, TheJackiMonster wrote:
> I thought so too. That's why I was really surprised that it made any
> difference because it was also in an assert statement.
> 
> Maybe I changed anything else during configuration which lead to
> passing the testcases but I can't think of anything.
> 
> Anyway in worst case, nothing changed by that commit. Otherwise some
> tests won't fail now on weird setups. ^^'
> 
> On Sun, 2020-11-08 at 08:33 -0600, David Barksdale wrote:
> > I don't understand how swapping htonl with ntohl made any
> > difference,
> > they are the same function. If you're on a big-endian system they
> > both
> > do nothing, if you're on a little-endian system they both swap byte
> > order, you'd have to be on some insane "middle-endian" system where
> > one
> > rotates left and the other rotates right for them to do different
> > things.
> > 
> > On 11/7/20 6:58 PM, TheJackiMonster wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > > 
> > > funny story... I was actually debugging my code of the messenger
> > > service and encountered a weird bug which was caused by an assert
> > > in
> > > one of my latest changes (the signing via EGO keys).
> > > 
> > > It turned out the assert failed because of a wrongly used htonl()
> > > instead of ntohl() to check the signatures size. But I was really
> > > confused of this because I was very certain, I had copied it from
> > > the
> > > signing macro for ECDSA keys to not make any mistake. ^^'
> > > 
> > > ...well, I did: So it seemed that both (ECDSA and EDDSA) sign
> > > makros
> > > and the one (ECDSA) verify makro swapped htonl() and ntohl() in
> > > its
> > > first assert.
> > > 
> > > So I tried correcting it and it looks like nearly all of the
> > > tests
> > > pass
> > > now. Before most tests didn't even start when I called 'make
> > > check'
> > > (only 50) and one test of them failed while one other skipped
> > > (which I
> > > thought was normal from such a huge project) but that simply
> > > changed
> > > just by flipping this typo. I have never seen so much green
> > > flowing
> > > down during debugging before. ^^'
> > > 
> > > I guess, I will commit the change to the main branch. Lucky thing
> > > to
> > > encounter. ^-^
> > > 
> > > Oh and by the way the messenger service seems to work fine now as
> > > well
> > > but I still need to write more testcases to make sure huge groups
> > > work
> > > actually as intended.
> > > 
> > > Happy hacking
> > > Jacki
> > > 
> > 
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]