-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.9k
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
crypto(7) no longer exists; EVP_*(3) point to a five-level manual chase instead of EVP_MD-*(7) #22420
Conversation
@nabijaczleweli The first commit is not needed. The crypto(7) manpage still exists as a link to the guide. See for example: https://www.openssl.org/docs/manmaster/man7/crypto.html |
Unfortunately this is also outside of what would be acceptable with CLA: trivial. Would you be willing to sign a regular CLA? |
Earlier today, it took me five manuals! to find what on earth the "Performance"/"EVP_MD_fetch(3)" crosslinks actually mean: EVP_sha1(3) crypto(7) EVP_MD_fetch(3) (but not there! don't read that!) OSSL_PROVIDER-default(7) EVP_MD-SHA1(7) If, instead, EVP_sha1(3) referenced EVP_MD-SHA1(7) at /all/, which it should do, since it's supposed to be what you're replacing it with, but it doesn't actually say that, maybe people would use it. I know I didn't because it's basically just deadass buried As found by git grep -l 'and should consider using'
That wasn't immediately obvious to me, the "CLA: trivial" stanza dropped, ICLA mailed to legal@ as |
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.
This looks good to me.
This pull request is ready to merge |
Pushed to master/3.1/3.0. Thanks! |
Earlier today, it took me five manuals! to find what on earth the "Performance"/"EVP_MD_fetch(3)" crosslinks actually mean: EVP_sha1(3) crypto(7) EVP_MD_fetch(3) (but not there! don't read that!) OSSL_PROVIDER-default(7) EVP_MD-SHA1(7) If, instead, EVP_sha1(3) referenced EVP_MD-SHA1(7) at /all/, which it should do, since it's supposed to be what you're replacing it with, but it doesn't actually say that, maybe people would use it. I know I didn't because it's basically just deadass buried As found by git grep -l 'and should consider using' Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from #22420) (cherry picked from commit b6eb95f)
Earlier today, it took me five manuals! to find what on earth the "Performance"/"EVP_MD_fetch(3)" crosslinks actually mean: EVP_sha1(3) crypto(7) EVP_MD_fetch(3) (but not there! don't read that!) OSSL_PROVIDER-default(7) EVP_MD-SHA1(7) If, instead, EVP_sha1(3) referenced EVP_MD-SHA1(7) at /all/, which it should do, since it's supposed to be what you're replacing it with, but it doesn't actually say that, maybe people would use it. I know I didn't because it's basically just deadass buried As found by git grep -l 'and should consider using' Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from #22420)
Earlier today, it took me five manuals! to find what on earth the "Performance"/"EVP_MD_fetch(3)" crosslinks actually mean: EVP_sha1(3) crypto(7) EVP_MD_fetch(3) (but not there! don't read that!) OSSL_PROVIDER-default(7) EVP_MD-SHA1(7) If, instead, EVP_sha1(3) referenced EVP_MD-SHA1(7) at /all/, which it should do, since it's supposed to be what you're replacing it with, but it doesn't actually say that, maybe people would use it. I know I didn't because it's basically just deadass buried As found by git grep -l 'and should consider using' Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from #22420) (cherry picked from commit b6eb95f)
Earlier today, it took me five manuals! to find what on earth the "Performance"/"EVP_MD_fetch(3)" crosslinks actually mean: EVP_sha1(3) crypto(7) EVP_MD_fetch(3) (but not there! don't read that!) OSSL_PROVIDER-default(7) EVP_MD-SHA1(7) If, instead, EVP_sha1(3) referenced EVP_MD-SHA1(7) at /all/, which it should do, since it's supposed to be what you're replacing it with, but it doesn't actually say that, maybe people would use it. I know I didn't because it's basically just deadass buried As found by git grep -l 'and should consider using' Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from openssl/openssl#22420) Signed-off-by: fly2x <fly2x@hitls.org>
Earlier today, it took me five manuals! to find what on earth the "Performance"/"EVP_MD_fetch(3)" crosslinks actually mean: EVP_sha1(3) crypto(7) EVP_MD_fetch(3) (but not there! don't read that!) OSSL_PROVIDER-default(7) EVP_MD-SHA1(7) If, instead, EVP_sha1(3) referenced EVP_MD-SHA1(7) at /all/, which it should do, since it's supposed to be what you're replacing it with, but it doesn't actually say that, maybe people would use it. I know I didn't because it's basically just deadass buried As found by git grep -l 'and should consider using' Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from openssl/openssl#22420) (cherry picked from commit b6eb95f) Signed-off-by: fly2x <fly2x@hitls.org>
Earlier today, it took me five manuals! to find what on earth the "Performance"/"EVP_MD_fetch(3)" crosslinks actually mean: EVP_sha1(3) crypto(7) EVP_MD_fetch(3) (but not there! don't read that!) OSSL_PROVIDER-default(7) EVP_MD-SHA1(7) If, instead, EVP_sha1(3) referenced EVP_MD-SHA1(7) at /all/, which it should do, since it's supposed to be what you're replacing it with, but it doesn't actually say that, maybe people would use it. I know I didn't because it's basically just deadass buried As found by git grep -l 'and should consider using' Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org> Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> (Merged from openssl/openssl#22420) (cherry picked from commit b6eb95f) Signed-off-by: fly2x <fly2x@hitls.org>
I'd wanted to fix
but crypto(7) doesn't exist anymore:
and yet
git grep crypto\(7
yields precisely 100 lines. Not great. Trivial fix, this is patch 1.Earlier today I finally buckled and tried to find out what the
paragraph means.
This took me 5 (five!) manuals:
just to find out what I'm supposed to give
EVP_MD_fetch()
(well okay, SHA was easy, but what "providers" call BLAKE2 was too nebulous to guess). Which is not great, considering these are supposed to be replacing the EVP_* functions, but what you're supposed to be replacing it with is deadass buried. Thus I made the paragraphs that contained "and should consider using" beWhich, I think, is useful to the developer instead of damning them for using the "legacy" function with no obvious recourse. This is patch 2.