On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:04:56 -0500
Kent Yoder <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Just checking, we are not doing any SHA_HMAC[256|512]_GENERAL tests?
>
> Hey, good catch. I can add them on top of this or resubmit this patch if
> you'd like.
>
> > > +char *
> > > +p11_get_mech(CK_ULONG mechanism)
> > > +{
> >
> > It may sound picky, but we're using p11_get_ckr() and p11_get_mech().
> > Do you think we should change the first to use p11_get_err() or the
> > second to use p11_get_ckm()?
>
> Not picky at all, I had the same thoughts. :-) Your call though... _ckm
> is fine w/ me.
>
> Thanks,
> Kent
Would you mind getting the remaining of SHA_HMACx_GENERAL testcases in
and re-send? Also, let's go for p11_get_ckm() for now.
Thanks!
-Klaus
--
Klaus Heinrich Kiwi | [email protected] | http://blog.klauskiwi.com
Open Source Security blog : http://www.ratliff.net/blog
IBM Linux Technology Center : http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by
Make an app they can't live without
Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge
http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Opencryptoki-tech mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opencryptoki-tech
