re-add a few engine bindings for advanced users #5449
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
For users who are capable of compiling cryptography against custom openssl and properly using these functions this hopefully allows PKCS11 usage through OpenSSL engines.
alex
approved these changes
Sep 1, 2020
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
For users who are capable of compiling cryptography against custom openssl and properly using these functions this hopefully allows PKCS11 usage through OpenSSL engines.
We've seen quite a few requests for this to be re-added over the past year, OpenSSL 3.0 is not coming out quickly (and providers won't replace engines immediately), and since we now support
no-enginethe maintenance burden here should be manageable.Note that we are not directly supporting the use of this, merely providing the escape hatch for advanced users. If there are additional bindings that are missing please let us know, although we won't add functions that have equivalents already (e.g.
EVP_sha256() is not needed because you can get theEVP_MD *via a call toEVP_get_digestbyname`).