x509: add missing X509 dup functions#9353
Conversation
mspncp
added
branch: master
We've generally allowed constification backports where it doesn't break API/ABI compat. |
Actually, this pull request here is a 'missing accessor' pull request. Number #9347 is the 'constification' pull request which is currently being discussed. Because we learned that in some specific cases, constifications can cause compiler warnings or even errors. Please take a look at the discussion at #9347 (review). |
|
Kicking Travis... |
include/openssl/x509.h
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe some unit tests would be good - coverage is already bad enough :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you serious? Or is this just your tit-for-tat response to my last overly pedantic comments? ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
up to you - at some point coverage will be looked at.. maybe..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with you that the ASN1 parser could need some more covering by unit tests. But I am not the person who would be able to implement them. Also, I am already punished enough with all those missing accessors and const incorrectnesses encountered while porting code from 1.0.2 to 1.1.1.
mspncp
force-pushed
the
pr-x509-add-missing-dup-functions
branch
from
a91f75a to
f5c88ef
Compare
|
Rebased without further changes to fix conflict in util/libcrypto.num. |
mspncp
added
the
approval: review pending
levitte
added
approval: done
Ideally, I would like to merge this pull request together with its 1.1.1 backport. The latter however depends on #9347. Is there any upate on #9347? |
|
There will be no cherry-pick to 1.1.1, since #9347 has been rejected. |
|
Ups, did not mean to close the entire pull request. |
mspncp
force-pushed
the
pr-x509-add-missing-dup-functions
branch
from
f5c88ef to
6ce1078
Compare
|
Rebased and autosquashed without further changes to resolve conflict in libcrypto.num. |
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <[email protected]> (Merged from #9353)
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <[email protected]> (Merged from #9353)
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <[email protected]> (Merged from #9353)
4 participants
Note: Some of these missing 'duplicators' are urgently needed by me for backporting some company code from 1.0.2 to 1.1.1.
That's why backporting this change to 1.1.1 (as a separate pull request) is my primary target. Since the backport is based on #9347, it will depend on the OMC decision about the constification policy.
If backporting will not be possible, well, then I'll have to live with my downstream patches....
Checklist