Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis <shane.lontis@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: David von Oheimb <david.von.oheimb@siemens.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/18668)
Also update and slightly extend the respective documentation and simplify some code.
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16251)
Also update OBJ_nid2obj.pod to document the possible return values.
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17005)
For functions that exist in 1.1.1 provide a simple aliases via #define.
Fixes#15236
Functions with OSSL_DECODER_, OSSL_ENCODER_, OSSL_STORE_LOADER_,
EVP_KEYEXCH_, EVP_KEM_, EVP_ASYM_CIPHER_, EVP_SIGNATURE_,
EVP_KEYMGMT_, EVP_RAND_, EVP_MAC_, EVP_KDF_, EVP_PKEY_,
EVP_MD_, and EVP_CIPHER_ prefixes are renamed.
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/15405)
The intention is to allow for OIDs for which libcrypto has no
information, but are still fetchable for OSSL_ALGORITHM
implementations that specify an OID amongst their names.
Fixes#14278
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/14498)
The apps, the CMS library and the X.509 library are primarly affected.
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tmraz@fedoraproject.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13589)
This includes error reporting for libcrypto sub-libraries in surprising
places.
This was done using util/err-to-raise
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <paul.dale@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13318)
We do the same thing for the "get1" version. In reality this has broader
use than just TLS (it can also be used in CMS), and "encodedpoint" only
makes sense when you are talking about EC based algorithms.
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tmraz@fedoraproject.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13105)
There is a large amount of CMS sepcific code in the algorithms. This is in
the wrong place and breaks layering. This code should be in the CMS layer.
Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis <shane.lontis@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13088)
There is quite a large amount of algorithm specific CMS code sitting in
the algorithm directories. However, this seems to break layering.
Algorithms really have no business knowing anything about CMS. Really it
should be the other way around. Where there is algorithm specific CMS code
it is the CMS layer that should know how to handle different algorithms.
Therefore we move this code into the CMS layer.
Reviewed-by: Shane Lontis <shane.lontis@oracle.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/13088)
