Re: [pkcs11] CK_ULONG considered harmful?

[Valerie Anne Fenwick <valerie.fenwick@oracle.com>]

On 05/21/13 12:18 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
> Suggesting changing a variably defined type (CK_ULONG as a long) to
> another variably defined type (size_t) is a pretty pointless exercise
> IMHO that solves nothing in terms of portability of the interface
> between 32-bit and 64-bit platforms or for a simple network protocol
> encoding.
>
> However as this isn't a v2.40 topic I suggest we save the real debate
> (and associated polls) for after we lock down the v2.40 work.
> Changing CK_ULONG isn't within the scope of v2.40 as I understand the
> consensus from the face to face discussions.
> If there are disagreements on what should or should not be in scope for
> v2.40 then we should have a straw poll to settle that issue.

I agree, this is too dangerous to attempt to fix in v2.40.

I still agree with Darren, we should fix this in 3.* by
using explicit types (uint32_t, uint64_t, etc)

Bob, can we set up a wiki with "Tabled" items for 3.*?
I don't want these to be forgotten.

Valerie
--
Valerie Fenwick, http://bubbva.blogspot.com/ @bubbva
Solaris Cryptographic Technologies, Manager, Oracle Corporation
Now appearing in "9 to 5" the Musical! June 29-July 27, 2013
      West Valley Light Opera: http://www.wvlo.org/