> I don't think the difference between C and C++ const pointer
> conversions
I mean I don't think the difference between them was intended.
No, it's undefined behavior to write to a const variable. The `static`
and `const` on the variable both change the code generation in the
real world as permitted / encouraged by the standard. It's placed in
read-only memory. Trying to write to it will break. It's not
"implemented defined" to write
> Just wondering. Is this actually a VLA. FFT_NUM_SAMPLES was static const so
> not really going to show a lot of variation. This array will always have the
> same size on the stack.
The issue is that unlike in C++, a `static const` can't be used in a
constant expression in C. It's unclear why C i
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 16:14 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> Quoting Daniel Micay (danielmi...@gmail.com):
> > Substantial added attack surface will never go away as a problem.
> > There
> > aren't a finite number of vulnerabilities to be found.
>
> There's var
Substantial added attack surface will never go away as a problem. There
aren't a finite number of vulnerabilities to be found.
On Fri, 2016-12-16 at 11:47 -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
>
> That's about 3x of jhash speed (7 nsecs). So that might closer
> to a more palatable replacement for jhash. Do we lose any security
> advantages with halfsiphash?
Have you tested a lower round SipHash? Probably best to stick with the
usual
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:57 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> >
> > Siphash needs a random secret key, yes. The point is that the hash
> > function remains secure so long as the secret key is kept secret.
> > Other functions can't make the same guarantee, and so nervous
> > p
