Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Drop explicit check for engines in opt_legacy_okay #19671

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

simo5
Copy link
Contributor

@simo5 simo5 commented Nov 14, 2022

The providers indication should always indicate that this is not a legacy request.
This makes a check for engines redundant as the default return is that legacy is ok if there are no explicit providers.

Fixes #19662

@t8m t8m added branch: master Merge to master branch approval: review pending This pull request needs review by a committer approval: otc review pending This pull request needs review by an OTC member triaged: bug The issue/pr is/fixes a bug branch: 3.0 Merge to openssl-3.0 branch branch: 3.1 Merge to openssl-3.1 labels Nov 14, 2022
@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Nov 14, 2022

Could we perhaps have some simple testcase for this?

@simo5
Copy link
Contributor Author

simo5 commented Nov 14, 2022

Could we perhaps have some simple testcase for this?

Not opposed, but not sure what should be tested exactly, just that a property will cause it to return 0?
Something else?

@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Nov 14, 2022

Yeah, call openssl dgst with -provider or -propquery option set up so the call should fail to detect that it does not fail properly without the patch.

The providers indication should always indicate that this is not a
legacy request.
This makes a check for engines redundant as the default return is that
legacy is ok if there are no explicit providers.

Fixes openssl#19662

Signed-off-by: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>
@simo5
Copy link
Contributor Author

simo5 commented Nov 14, 2022

@t8m added simple test

@paulidale paulidale removed the approval: otc review pending This pull request needs review by an OTC member label Nov 15, 2022
@t8m t8m added the tests: present The PR has suitable tests present label Nov 15, 2022
Copy link
Member

@t8m t8m left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the testcase.

@t8m t8m added approval: done This pull request has the required number of approvals and removed approval: review pending This pull request needs review by a committer labels Nov 15, 2022
Copy link
Member

@beldmit beldmit left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

@openssl-machine openssl-machine added approval: ready to merge The 24 hour grace period has passed, ready to merge and removed approval: done This pull request has the required number of approvals labels Nov 16, 2022
@openssl-machine
Copy link
Collaborator

This pull request is ready to merge

openssl-machine pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 16, 2022
The providers indication should always indicate that this is not a
legacy request.
This makes a check for engines redundant as the default return is that
legacy is ok if there are no explicit providers.

Fixes #19662

Signed-off-by: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Belyavskiy <beldmit@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from #19671)
@t8m
Copy link
Member

t8m commented Nov 16, 2022

Merged to master, 3.1, 3.0 branches. Thank you for your contribution.

@t8m t8m closed this Nov 16, 2022
openssl-machine pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 16, 2022
The providers indication should always indicate that this is not a
legacy request.
This makes a check for engines redundant as the default return is that
legacy is ok if there are no explicit providers.

Fixes #19662

Signed-off-by: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Belyavskiy <beldmit@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from #19671)

(cherry picked from commit 2fea568)
openssl-machine pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 16, 2022
The providers indication should always indicate that this is not a
legacy request.
This makes a check for engines redundant as the default return is that
legacy is ok if there are no explicit providers.

Fixes #19662

Signed-off-by: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Belyavskiy <beldmit@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from #19671)

(cherry picked from commit 2fea568)
beldmit pushed a commit to beldmit/openssl that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2022
The providers indication should always indicate that this is not a
legacy request.
This makes a check for engines redundant as the default return is that
legacy is ok if there are no explicit providers.

Fixes openssl#19662

Signed-off-by: Simo Sorce <simo@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Dmitry Belyavskiy <beldmit@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from openssl#19671)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
approval: ready to merge The 24 hour grace period has passed, ready to merge branch: master Merge to master branch branch: 3.0 Merge to openssl-3.0 branch branch: 3.1 Merge to openssl-3.1 tests: present The PR has suitable tests present triaged: bug The issue/pr is/fixes a bug
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

opt_legacy_okay() does not seem to work as intended
5 participants