Re: confusion with rsa_meth_st in a custom RSA engine

"Brett R. Nicholas" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.encryption.openssl.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
I just realized that my reply to Richard and Douglas didn't go through....I had the emails bundled to a digest, so not sure how to properly reply to an individual thread.  My prior email should have said "Thanks, I"ll give it a try and let you know how it goes". Disabled the digest now, though.


@Richard, I've looked at the source like you suggested. One more question......quoting your reply below:

> That flag means that the standard public/private encrypt/decrypt won't
> try to access the p, q, dmp1 and iqmp components of the RSA structure,
> i.e. the components that make up the private part.  Instead, that's
> left entirely to the mod_exp function (i.e. what you actually do implement).


This makes sense to me, and it seems that is the desired behavior. However, if I *only* reimplement the rsa_mod_exp() function, and leave the encrypt/decrypt functions to the default openSSL implementations, how can my engine know which of the four of those functions called its rsa_mod_exp function()? To put it another way: my accelerator will need to know whether it is meant to perform public key or private key operations, since the inputs will be written to different memory addresses. From within rsa_mod_exp(), the only way I can think of determining whether the function has been called by private_encrypt/decrypt() or public_encrypt/decrypt would be to check if the  p and q fields of the RSA *rsa struct passed into the function are NULL? But I can't tell from the source code if this will be guaranteed just by having  RSA_FLAG_EXT_PKEY set in the "flags" field of my engine's RSA_METHOD.


Thanks for the help so far!


Brett

-- 
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.