On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 04:06:19PM +0100, Giorgio Vazzana wrote:
> 2015-01-27 22:01 GMT+01:00 supraja reddy :
> > Hello,
> >
> >> +for (i = 0; i < cs->ksize; i++) {
> >> > +Me[i] = Key[2 * i];
> >> > +Mo[i] = Key[2 * i + 1];
> >> > +}
> >> > +for (i = 0; i < cs->ksize; i
2015-01-27 22:01 GMT+01:00 supraja reddy :
> Hello,
>
>> +for (i = 0; i < cs->ksize; i++) {
>> > +Me[i] = Key[2 * i];
>> > +Mo[i] = Key[2 * i + 1];
>> > +}
>> > +for (i = 0; i < cs->ksize; i++)
>> > +cs->S[cs->ksize - i - 1] = tf_RS(Me[i], Mo[i]);
>>
>> Can't the
Hello,
> +for (i = 0; i < cs->ksize; i++) {
> > +Me[i] = Key[2 * i];
> > +Mo[i] = Key[2 * i + 1];
> > +}
> > +for (i = 0; i < cs->ksize; i++)
> > +cs->S[cs->ksize - i - 1] = tf_RS(Me[i], Mo[i]);
>
> Can't the previous two for loops be merged together?
>
>
You wa
On 25 January 2015 20:00:07 CET, supraja reddy wrote:
>Sorry. I forgot to make a small change. Updated the patch.
>
Not specifically related to this patch, but with this many implementations I
think it is high time we warn about the security implications of using them.
My original implementation
Hi,
2015-01-25 20:00 GMT+01:00 supraja reddy :
> Sorry. I forgot to make a small change. Updated the patch.
> +for (i = 0; i < cs->ksize; i++) {
> +Me[i] = Key[2 * i];
> +Mo[i] = Key[2 * i + 1];
> +}
> +for (i = 0; i < cs->ksize; i++)
> +cs->S[cs->ksize - i - 1
Sorry. I forgot to make a small change. Updated the patch.
Thanks,
Supraja
On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 12:12 AM, supraja reddy
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have made all the changes as suggested. If the number of if-else loops
> in init() seem to be too many, please let me know I will change it but I
> ha
Hello,
I have made all the changes as suggested. If the number of if-else loops in
init() seem to be too many, please let me know I will change it but I have
put them to handle the return values and overflow issues. If there are any
other changes, please let me know.
Thanks,
Supraja
On Sun, Jan
Hello,
thanks for the new patch. As I said the code looks quite good, here's
what I spotted in my review:
> From b46d6a457aeee319fc6e56217a265c9881a34c2c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Supraja Meedinti
> Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:35:16 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] libavutil: Added Twofish block ci
Hi
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 01:26:18AM +0530, supraja reddy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Thanks for you reviews.
>
> I see this is only use during init but if it still matters speedwise
> > and assuming this is a galois field multiplication the it can be
> > written as
> >
> > EXP_GF256[LOG_GF256[a] + LOG
Hello,
Thanks for you reviews.
I see this is only use during init but if it still matters speedwise
> and assuming this is a galois field multiplication the it can be
> written as
>
> EXP_GF256[LOG_GF256[a] + LOG_GF256[b]] (for a!=0 && b!=0)
>
> Do you want me to insert tables EXP_GF256 and LOG_
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:21:22PM +0530, supraja reddy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have attached the patch for twofish implementation. Please let me know if
> there are any changes to be made.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Supraja
[...]
> +av_cold int av_twofish_init(AVTWOFISH *cs, const uint8_t *Key, int key
Hi,
2015-01-15 20:43 GMT+01:00 Michael Niedermayer :
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:21:22PM +0530, supraja reddy wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have attached the patch for twofish implementation. Please let me know if
>> there are any changes to be made.
the code looks quite nice already, give me some da
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 10:21:22PM +0530, supraja reddy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have attached the patch for twofish implementation. Please let me know if
> there are any changes to be made.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Supraja
> Makefile |3
> twofish.c | 351
>
Hello,
I have attached the patch for twofish implementation. Please let me know if
there are any changes to be made.
Thank you,
Supraja
From f86554850a8b0be2e32fcd341ca297c7ce73a941 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Supraja Meedinti
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 21:35:16 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] libavutil:
14 matches
Mail list logo
