Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[parity-util-mem] remove Memzero #183

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 1, 2019
Merged

[parity-util-mem] remove Memzero #183

merged 1 commit into from
Jul 1, 2019

Conversation

ordian
Copy link
Member

@ordian ordian commented Jun 28, 2019

Closes #181. This is a breaking change.
We could probably reexport zeroize's Zeroizing as Memzero, but I don't see any benefits of that. Also I'm in favor of Single Responsibility Principle and if a crate wants to (only) use zeroize functionality, it doesn't have to depend on allocator stuff.

Copy link
Contributor

@dvdplm dvdplm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sure, why not. Are you taking care of the the fallout of this too?

Copy link
Collaborator

@cheme cheme left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Seems like a good idea.

@ordian
Copy link
Member Author

ordian commented Jun 28, 2019

Are you taking care of the the fallout of this too?

I'll prepare a PR to parity-ethereum and parity-crypto.

@ordian ordian merged commit 2a8a33a into master Jul 1, 2019
@ordian ordian deleted the ao-remove-memzero branch July 1, 2019 15:46
ordian added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 4, 2019
* master:
  [parity-util-mem] remove Memzero (#183)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[parity-util-mem] consider using zeroize crate
3 participants