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
Conversation
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? |
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>
@t8m added simple test |
There was a problem hiding this 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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
This pull request is ready to merge |
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)
Merged to master, 3.1, 3.0 branches. Thank you for your contribution. |
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)
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)
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)
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