On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 12:19:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Even if we'd try to force our internal implementation of SHA256 on > already-released branches instead of the one of OpenSSL, this would be > an ABI break for compiled modules expected to work on this released > branch as OpenSSL's internal SHA structures don't exactly match with > our own implementation (think just about sizeof() or such).
Well, we could as well add one extra SHA API layer pointing to the EVP structures and APIs with new names, leaving the original ones in place, and then have SCRAM use the new ones, but I'd rather not go down that road for the back-branches. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
