On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 09:40:24PM +0000, Richard Levitte via RT wrote: > On Sat Jul 02 10:59:38 2016, k...@roeckx.be wrote: > > /* Add to include/openssl/x509v3.h */ > > > > void X509_set_extension_flags(X509 *x, uint32_t ex_flags); > > void X509_clear_extension_flags(X509 *x, uint32_t ex_flags); > > > > > > /* Add to crypto/x509v3/v3_purp.c */ > > > > void X509_set_extension_flags(X509 *x, uint32_t ex_flags) > > { > > x->ex_flags |= ex_flags; > > } > > > > void X509_clear_extension_flags(X509 *x, uint32_t ex_flags) > > { > > x->ex_flags &= ~ex_flags; > > } > > This gives me the heebie jeebies. ex_flags is used a lot internally, and I > can't begin to imagine the consequences of letting external code manipulate > this. I understand that in some cases, it seems easy and quick, but... > > So, if someone else wants to have a go at this and can make something > sensible, > please be my guest. Me, I'm backing off from this particular idea.
Mattias, Can you explain why this is needed, what the code is trying to do? Kurt -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev