I have tried to convert 'len' type variable declarations to unsigned as a
means to address these warnings when appropriate, but when in doubt I have
used casts in the comparisons instead. The better solution (that would get
us all lynched by API users) would be to go through and convert all the
function prototypes and structure definitions to use unsigned variables
except when signed is necessary. The proliferation of (signed) "int" for
strictly non-negative uses is unfortunate.
not implemented. (Bug reported by Martin Szotkowski)
This also changes the non-"_ex" versions to defer directly to
EVP_CipherInit_ex() rather than EVP_CipherInit() to avoid an unecessary
level of indirection.
See crypto/engine/README for details.
- it also removes openbsd_hw.c from the build (that functionality is
going to be available in the openbsd ENGINE in a upcoming commit)
- evp_test has had the extra initialisation added so it will use (if
possible) any ENGINEs supporting the algorithms required.
Change EVP_SealInit() and EVP_OpenInit() to
handle cipher parameters.
Make it possible to set RC2 and RC5 params.
Make RC2 ASN1 code use the effective key bits
and not the key length.
TODO: document how new API works.
Declare ciphers in terms of macros. This reduces
the amount of code and places each block cipher EVP
definition in a single file instead of being spread
over 4 files.
Change functions like EVP_EncryptUpdate() so they now return a
value. These normally have software only implementations
which cannot fail so this was acceptable. However ciphers
can be implemented in hardware and these could return errors.
enhance and tidy up the EVP interface.
This patch adds initial support for variable length ciphers
and changes S/MIME code to use this.
Some other library functions need modifying to support use
of modified cipher parameters.
Also need to change all the cipher functions that should
return error codes, but currenly don't.
And of course it needs extensive testing...
1. The already released version was 0.9.1c and not 0.9.1b
2. The next release should be 0.9.2 and not 0.9.1d, because
first the changes are already too large, second we should avoid any more
0.9.1x confusions and third, the Apache version semantics of
VERSION.REVISION.PATCHLEVEL for the version string is reasonable (and here
.2 is already just a patchlevel and not major change).
tVS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------
