In message <571fccee.8010...@roumenpetrov.info> on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 23:17:50 +0300, Roumen Petrov <open...@roumenpetrov.info> said:
openssl> Hello Richard, openssl> openssl> Richard Levitte wrote: openssl> > In message <571f2941.4040...@openssl.org> on Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:39:29 openssl> > +0100, Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org> said: openssl> > openssl> > [SNIP] openssl> > I've seen no other opinion, so I went with it. Would you mind having openssl> > a look at GH#995? I did a bit of change in the docs, but could need openssl> > some help expressing it in a better manner. openssl> > openssl> > Also, I'd like to hear from Douglas and Tomas if these changes found openssl> > in said pull request would fit your bill better... basically, it openssl> > allows (or should allow, unless I've goofed something up) a call set openssl> > like this: openssl> > openssl> > RSA_set0_key(rsa, n, e, NULL); openssl> > /* other stuff done, such as calculatig d */ openssl> > RSA_set0_key(rsa, NULL, NULL, d); openssl> As methods allows user to set only public part I would like to propose openssl> to add new key method "...set0_privkey" to set just private key. openssl> This will allow to avoid duplicate of key public part between get0 and openssl> set0 key methods. That's conceptually confusing, as the private RSA key is composed of e and d. Why would anyone expect to give it only d? -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
