On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@wine.codeweavers.com wrote:
- case ALG_ID_SHA384:
CC_SHA384_Update( &hash->u.sha512_ctx, input, size );break;- case ALG_ID_SHA512:
CC_SHA512_Update( &hash->u.sha512_ctx, input, size );break;
I missed this when I first saw the patches but in a second look and judging by the surrounding code I guess there is a copy&paste issue here. SHA384 should probably use &hash->u.sha384_ctx, no?
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 04:32 +0700, Bruno Jesus wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@wine.codeweavers.com wrote:
- case ALG_ID_SHA384:
CC_SHA384_Update( &hash->u.sha512_ctx, input, size );break;- case ALG_ID_SHA512:
CC_SHA512_Update( &hash->u.sha512_ctx, input, size );break;I missed this when I first saw the patches but in a second look and judging by the surrounding code I guess there is a copy&paste issue here. SHA384 should probably use &hash->u.sha384_ctx, no?
No, CC_SHA384_Update() takes a CC_SHA512_CTX * as the first parameter. It makes sense because SHA384 is a truncated SHA512 hash.
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:05 AM, Hans Leidekker hans@codeweavers.com wrote:
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 04:32 +0700, Bruno Jesus wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Alexandre Julliard julliard@wine.codeweavers.com wrote:
- case ALG_ID_SHA384:
CC_SHA384_Update( &hash->u.sha512_ctx, input, size );break;- case ALG_ID_SHA512:
CC_SHA512_Update( &hash->u.sha512_ctx, input, size );break;I missed this when I first saw the patches but in a second look and judging by the surrounding code I guess there is a copy&paste issue here. SHA384 should probably use &hash->u.sha384_ctx, no?
No, CC_SHA384_Update() takes a CC_SHA512_CTX * as the first parameter. It makes sense because SHA384 is a truncated SHA512 hash.
My bad, thanks for the info. I just read about that and also SHA224.
-
Bruno Jesus -
Hans Leidekker