On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 01:36 +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I assume nobody is surprised to see me say this: I do not see a
> requirement to do this in 3.0. In particular, I hope that none of the
> contributors who already have 3.0 work spend time on this.
>
> If this is going to be considered for 3.
I assume nobody is surprised to see me say this: I do not see a requirement to
do this in 3.0. In particular, I hope that none of the contributors who already
have 3.0 work spend time on this.
If this is going to be considered for 3.0, I would like to know the rationale
for doing so. I don’t
#8765 <https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/8765> has been sitting in an OTC
hold state for a while and @DDvO has asked how it can be progressed.
The PR is attempting to change the bnrand_range() function.
Our existing code iterates (up to 100 times) and generates candidates which
eac
