Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-08 Thread Salz, Rich
> The other question would be: assuming there's no replacement for some > direct field access, are people willing to add the needed functions not only > into 1.1 but also into 1.0.x, in order to avoid code duplication for end > users? The idea of a 'shim' layer that helps bridge the gap between 1

Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-08 Thread Matt Caswell
On 08/02/15 01:11, Richard Moore wrote: > Maybe some edge case for things like the TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV could have an > effect, but even then I can't see how it would relevant to the code > that's actually doing this. I thought about that myself and so checked TLS_FALLBACK_SCSV - but even that is m

Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-07 Thread Richard Moore
On 8 February 2015 at 00:19, Matt Caswell wrote: > > > On 07/02/15 14:41, Richard Moore wrote: > > > > > > On 3 February 2015 at 22:02, Rich Salz > > wrote: > > > > As we've already said, we are moving to making most OpenSSL data > > structures opaque. We delibe

Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-07 Thread Matt Caswell
On 07/02/15 14:41, Richard Moore wrote: > > > On 3 February 2015 at 22:02, Rich Salz > wrote: > > As we've already said, we are moving to making most OpenSSL data > structures opaque. We deliberately used a non-specific term. :) > As of Matt's commit of t

Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-07 Thread Richard Moore
On 7 February 2015 at 17:22, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: > On Sat, Feb 07, 2015, Richard Moore wrote: > > > > > I've documented what got broken in Qt by the changes so far. I've listed > > the functions I think we can use instead where they exist, and those > where > > there does not appear to be a

Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-07 Thread Dr. Stephen Henson
On Sat, Feb 07, 2015, Richard Moore wrote: > > I've documented what got broken in Qt by the changes so far. I've listed > the functions I think we can use instead where they exist, and those where > there does not appear to be a replacement. > For the DH case could you store the encoding of the

Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-07 Thread Giuseppe D'Angelo
Il 07/02/2015 15:41, Richard Moore ha scritto: I've documented what got broken in Qt by the changes so far. I've listed the functions I think we can use instead where they exist, and those where there does not appear to be a replacement. The other question would be: assuming there's no replacem

Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-07 Thread Matt Caswell
On 07/02/15 14:41, Richard Moore wrote: > > > On 3 February 2015 at 22:02, Rich Salz > wrote: > > As we've already said, we are moving to making most OpenSSL data > structures opaque. We deliberately used a non-specific term. :) > As of Matt's commit of t

Re: [openssl-users] [openssl-dev] The evolution of the 'master' branch

2015-02-07 Thread Richard Moore
On 3 February 2015 at 22:02, Rich Salz wrote: > As we've already said, we are moving to making most OpenSSL data > structures opaque. We deliberately used a non-specific term. :) > As of Matt's commit of the other day, this is starting to happen > now. We know this will inconvenience people as s