On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 09:17:05AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-12-07 at 19:18 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 10:35:02AM +0000, Matt Caswell wrote:
> > > topic: Accept PR #16705 into 3.0 subject to the normal review
> > > process
> >
> > -1
> >
> > From what I understand, this breaks our provider API. Providers
> > that work with 3.0.0 will not work when that PR is applied, and
> > providers that do the same implementation as that PR will not work
> > with 3.0.0. That might be something that can be fixed in the PR.
> >
> > We might want to make changes like that, but we clearly need better
> > rules for when it's acceptable to make such change, and how to make
> > sure it's compatible.
>
> Kurt, can you please explain why do you think this breaks the provider
> API compatibility with 3.0.0? I do not see any such breakage possible
> from the PR.
I was at least confused by:
# define OSSL_KEYMGMT_SELECT_KEYPAIR \
( OSSL_KEYMGMT_SELECT_PRIVATE_KEY | OSSL_KEYMGMT_SELECT_PUBLIC_KEY )
I assumed this was a different bit rather than the combination of 2
bits, and that we stopped calling it with the existing bit and called
it with a new bit instead. But we're just calling it with an extra bit
set.
Kurt
