Re: RFC: GNU Crypto and Jessie (again)

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Casey,

On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 19:06 -0800, Casey Marshall wrote:
> I've finished splitting GNU Crypto along "weak" and "strong" lines,  
> reformatted the code in GNU Crypto, and added the correct copyright  
> headers to all the files. The resulting patch, and zip file of new  
> files is here:
> 
>    <http://metastatic.org/source/gnu-crypto-jessie-2.patch.txt>
>    <http://metastatic.org/source/gnu-crypto-jessie-2.zip>
> 
> You need both files; the patch is against a recent Classpath CVS  
> snapshot, and does contain a few miscellaneous fixes outside of  
> supporting GNU Crypto and Jessie, to make sure SSL connections  
> actually work. The zip file can be unpacked in the toplevel Classpath  
> directory. There are no changes to the build system (I don't know if  
> the GCJ support needs changing at all; I don't use it, so I can't tell).

Nice work! I quickly tried it out and it seems to work (or at least not
break anything, I didn't try very hard yet). Just make sure you don't
accidentially override the gnu/javax/security/auth/login files with some
other version (although it looks what you have is what is in CVS).

It might actually import cleanly into libgcj, but don't worry about
that. If anything needs changing we will do that with the next merge.

> There is still some code duplication here and there, say when two  
> different implementations (like RSA encryption and signatures) use  
> their own Key classes. The duplication isn't major, however, and we  
> can sort it out later on.

Could you make a list and file a bug report about the duplicates? I saw
there are multiple implementations of MD5 and SHA1 now (you commented
them out in Gnu provider, was that deliberate?)

>  Some things, like Diffie Hellman, are  
> duplicated, but not in a clean way --- Classpath's DH implementation  
> is written to the JCE API, while GNU Crypto's is not (and, the latter  
> is used by Jessie). Again, I hope these issues aren't blockers,  
> because I'd like to get this merged as soon as possible, lest my  
> schedule block me from finally doing it.

I don't think so. If you can make sure that there are bug reports for
these issues then I think you should commit this now.

Could you also add a little note to the NEWS file about this?

Thanks,

Mark

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part