Skip to content

Conversation

@slontis
Copy link
Member

@slontis slontis commented Sep 26, 2020

Added a legacy related macro for the pkey controls.
Moved dsa & rsa control functions out of XXX_lib.c into XXX_ctrl.c. These are excluded from the fips module.
Removed the auto increment past the end of param arrays in multiple places (i.e *p = OSSL_PARAM_construct_end())

Checklist
  • documentation is added or updated
  • tests are added or updated

@slontis slontis added branch: master Applies to master branch approval: review pending This pull request needs review by a committer labels Sep 26, 2020
@slontis slontis force-pushed the todo_fixes branch 2 times, most recently from 21059c0 to 16dd5f9 Compare September 26, 2020 08:20
@kroeckx kroeckx added this to the 3.0.0 beta1 milestone Oct 7, 2020
@paulidale paulidale modified the milestones: 3.0.0 beta1, 3.0.0 Oct 7, 2020
@slontis
Copy link
Member Author

slontis commented Oct 22, 2020

ping

@slontis
Copy link
Member Author

slontis commented Nov 1, 2020

ping

1 similar comment
@slontis
Copy link
Member Author

slontis commented Nov 10, 2020

ping

Added a legacy related macro for the pkey controls.
Moved dsa & rsa control functions out of XXX_lib.c into XXX_ctrl.c. These are excluded from the fips module.
Removed the auto increment past the end of param arrays in multiple places  (i.e *p = OSSL_PARAM_construct_end())
@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 30 days ago

@t8m t8m self-assigned this Feb 2, 2021
@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR is in a state where it requires action by @openssl/committers but the last update was 61 days ago

@t8m t8m modified the milestones: 3.0.0 beta1, Sprint Hydrogen Feb 9, 2021
@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Feb 9, 2021

@slontis Shane, I'm taking this PR over from you. Are you OK with it?

@slontis
Copy link
Member Author

slontis commented Feb 9, 2021

Yes that is fine..
I am not sure if you agree with what I was doing in here..
Will be interesting to see what you do. Should not take long to fix this one up hopefully.

@levitte
Copy link
Member

levitte commented Feb 10, 2021

Rebase needed, plus this competes with #13913. If you can do a fairly quick job of this, @t8m, I have no problems adapting my work to whatever comes out.

@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Feb 10, 2021

Hmm, looking at the #13913 makes me think that this PR should be simply closed as the approach taken there is basically reverse of what is done here. There are some useful nits among the changes here that could be applied after #13913 from this PR but otherwise it does not make much sense. So I'll probably postpone this after the #13913 is merged.

@levitte
Copy link
Member

levitte commented Feb 10, 2021

... So I'll probably postpone this after the #13913 is merged.

Okie, makes sense.

@levitte
Copy link
Member

levitte commented Feb 23, 2021

#13913 is merged. Time to rebase this and see what's left of it, if any...

@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Feb 23, 2021

#13913 is merged. Time to rebase this and see what's left of it, if any...

I am just going through this and applying remaining useful changes from this to a new PR. Then I'll close this one.

@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Feb 23, 2021

This is now superseded by #14290

@t8m t8m closed this Feb 23, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

approval: review pending This pull request needs review by a committer branch: master Applies to master branch

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants