Not to disagree of course, but you can always put printf's in your callbacks
CharlesSent from a mobile; please excuse the brevity.
Original message From: "Salz, Rich via openssl-users"
Date: 4/13/18 3:22 PM (GMT-05:00) To:
on Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:17:28 -0700, William Roberts
bill.c.roberts> I am currently working on writing an openssl engine
bill.c.roberts> to interface with a piece of hardware.
I'm trying to migrate some application code from OpenSSL 1.0.1e to 1.1.0g.
I keep seeing that the locking and threading callbacks I had used earlier
(with CRYPTO_set_locking_callback and CRYPTO_set_id_callback respectively)
now show up as "unused" during compilation.
* Does this mean I can safely remove all usages of the above functions from
my application code? I'd appreciate if someone could explain the above comment
in a little more detail or confirm what I'm saying. Or has anyone else been in
the same situation?
Yes. Do not use the locking
OpenSSL 1.1.0 *does not* go through the locking callbacks. They will never be
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message
> on Fri,
> 13 Apr 2018 09:17:28 -0700, William Roberts said:
> bill.c.roberts> I am currently working on
I am currently working on writing an openssl engine
to interface with a piece of hardware.
I am trying to understand how to implement
rsa key generation, where the private key
bytes would not be available.
I am currently invoking the
openssl genrsa -engine foo
Which is calling my