Re: [pkcs11] CK_ULONG considered harmful?

[Andrey Jivsov <Andrey_Jivsov@symantec.com>]

On 05/21/2013 12:40 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> ...

> "Although the internal representation for a CK_ULONG may be 32 bits or 
> longer, by convention, only the least significant 32 bits shall be 
> used to represent PKCS11 data values (with the one exception of the 
> ~0UL value *sigh*). This permits a loss-less conversion from a 
> CK_ULONG 32 bit value to a CK_ULONG 64 bit value and vice versa." 

That's essentially what we were discussing with Chris.

If there are no concerns about loosing 64 bit support, i.e. inability to 
map 4Gb file and CBC-encrypt it an one block in one PKCS#11 call, that is.