No it is not a reversal! Not at all!
That commit is important to make things work, without it things were broken.
However, when i wrote that commit it was not clear to me that the SubjectHash() method did in fact add ".0" to the hash. In the old code, the comparison of the return value from SubjectHash() was sometimes done against the string with the ".0" and sometimes against the string without the ".0" depending on the input data, and it was not obvious when the code was doing the right thing and when it was doing the wrong thing. After the previous commit the comparison was always done against the string without the ".0" (since this was to me the most obvious meaning of the SubjectHash() method name - which was not correct).
The important part of the previous commit was to do the same thing irrespectively whether the input data has the ".0" at the end or not, and it achieved that. And that is what made things work.
The part with the comparison is usually not very crucial since it decides which of the two files should be used for the parent certificate, and normally both are present.
The important parts of the previous commit are the parts that are not touched by this one.
—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
{"api_version":"1.0","publisher":{"api_key":"05dde50f1d1a384dd78767c55493e4bb","name":"GitHub"},"entity":{"external_key":"github/xrootd/xrootd","title":"xrootd/xrootd","subtitle":"GitHub repository","main_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/17495839/a5054eac-5d88-11e6-95fc-7290892c7bb5.png","avatar_image_url":"https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/143418/15842166/7c72db34-2c0b-11e6-9aed-b52498112777.png","action":{"name":"Open in GitHub","url":"https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd"}},"updates":{"snippets":[{"icon":"PERSON","message":"@ellert in #464: No it is not a reversal! Not at all!\r\n\r\nThat commit is important to make things work, without it things were broken.\r\n\r\nHowever, when i wrote that commit it was not clear to me that the SubjectHash() method did in fact add \".0\" to the hash. In the old code, the comparison of the return value from SubjectHash() was sometimes done against the string with the \".0\" and sometimes against the string without the \".0\" depending on the input data, and it was not obvious when the code was doing the right thing and when it was doing the wrong thing. After the previous commit the comparison was always done against the string without the \".0\" (since this was to me the most obvious meaning of the SubjectHash() method name - which was not correct).\r\n\r\nThe important part of the previous commit was to do the same thing irrespectively whether the input data has the \".0\" at the end or not, and it achieved that. And that is what made things work.\r\n\r\nThe part with the comparison is usually not very crucial since it decides which of the two files should be used for the parent certificate, and normally both are present.\r\n\r\nThe important parts of the previous commit are the parts that are not touched by this one.\r\n"}],"action":{"name":"View Pull Request","url":"https://github.com/xrootd/xrootd/pull/464#issuecomment-281099493"}}}
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list
To unsubscribe from the XROOTD-DEV list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=XROOTD-DEV&A=1