On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:13:04PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:35:08PM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 08:06:00PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> > > While studying why X509_check_ca() is the ugly thing it is, tb@
> > > suggested x509v3_cache_extensio
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 09:35:08PM +0100, Theo Buehler wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 08:06:00PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> > While studying why X509_check_ca() is the ugly thing it is, tb@
> > suggested x509v3_cache_extensions() might benefit from a wrapper to
> > avoid duplication of locking
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 08:06:00PM +, Job Snijders wrote:
> While studying why X509_check_ca() is the ugly thing it is, tb@
> suggested x509v3_cache_extensions() might benefit from a wrapper to
> avoid duplication of locking and checking the stupid EXFLAG_INVALID
> flag. x509v3_cache_extensions
While studying why X509_check_ca() is the ugly thing it is, tb@
suggested x509v3_cache_extensions() might benefit from a wrapper to
avoid duplication of locking and checking the stupid EXFLAG_INVALID
flag. x509v3_cache_extensions() isn't a public function anyway.
Passes regress & rpki-client.
OK?
