Martin Paljak wrote: > On Feb 1, 2010, at 18:54 , Viktor TARASOV wrote: > >> Martin Paljak wrote: >> >>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 17:07 , Andreas Jellinghaus wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Am Montag 01 Februar 2010 15:10:05 schrieb Viktor TARASOV: >>>> >>>> fine with me. >>>> >>>> btw: if you need to touch pkcs11/ for that, maybe you know the >>>> code best: IIRC there are several frameworks (so that in theory >>>> we could implement alternatives to pkcs#15). maybe that option >>>> is no longer interesting and can go. but I'm no expert on that, >>>> it seems so far we have a "pkcs15" and a "pkcs15init" implementation >>>> of that framework structure, so no idea if we can simplify the >>>> code there or not. >>>> >>>> >>> In real life the two frameworks are deeply interconnected and >>> interdependent for now. >>> >>> >> Do you mean two frameworks in pkcs11: 'framework-pkcs15' and >> 'framework-pkcs15init' ? >> Do we really use the second one? >> > Maybe a consolidation can be done here as well: > sc_pkcs15_bind > sc_pkcs15_bind_synthetic > sc_pkcs15_unbind > sc_pkcs15init_bind > sc_pkcs15init_unbind >
I guess not only consolidation -- one day 'pkcs15', 'pkcs15init' and 'pkcs11' frameworks in OpenSC should be really 'multi-application'. 'Sc_pkcs15_bind' should accept the AID of the application; 'framework-pkcs15' should make the slots for all pkcs#15 compatible applications, etc. > At the same time having a pluggable codebase in the PKCS#11 module would be > beneficial, for example to be able to easily create a PKCS#11 module for a > card that does not implement a filesystem and where emulating it in a card > driver would not make sense either. > I see, thanks -- Viktor Tarasov <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
