> Would not a set of routines like: > BIGNUM* RSA_get0_key_n(RSA *rsa); > int RSA_set0_key_n(RSA *rsa, BIGNUM *n); (A set for: n, e, d, p, q, idmp1, > idmq1, iqmp) be much more backward compatible?
We had discussed this in the team, and decided that it was better to have a single API that took all the piece-parts, rather than being able to set the individual components. It's conceptually simpler to gather what you need and then create a key, rather than everyone having to constantly check to see if all the necessary fields have been set. > If nothing else, all the RSA_set0 routines should test if the same pointer > value is being replaced if so do not free it. > > The same logic need to be done for all the RSA_set0_* functions as well as > the DSA_set0_* functions. That seems like a bug we should fix. -- Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
