On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:26:23 PM you wrote:
> Since this is a fairly thorny issue, and a large patch to solve it,
> verification needs to include extensive documentation of what testing
> was done.
Almost all the patch was tool noise, so it's pretty low risk. There isn't a
good way to verify the key length checks are doing precisely what they are
supposed to, but be can validate no regressions. I'm in contact with upstream
and they've had no reports of issues, so I'm confident the upstream changes
work.
On Wednesday, November 07, 2012 10:26:23 PM you wrote:
> Since this is a fairly thorny issue, and a large patch to solve it,
> verification needs to include extensive documentation of what testing
> was done.
Almost all the patch was tool noise, so it's pretty low risk. There isn't a
good way to verify the key length checks are doing precisely what they are
supposed to, but be can validate no regressions. I'm in contact with upstream
and they've had no reports of issues, so I'm confident the upstream changes
work.