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

Bindings to rustls-platform-verifier? #417

Closed
amesgen opened this issue Apr 6, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #419
Closed

Bindings to rustls-platform-verifier? #417

amesgen opened this issue Apr 6, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #419

Comments

@amesgen
Copy link
Contributor

amesgen commented Apr 6, 2024

Any thoughts on including bindings to rustls-platform-verifier? AFAICT the reasons listed in #110 (which removed rustls-native-roots) do not apply to it.

E.g. sth like this (maybe also taking in additional root certs):

#[no_mangle]
pub extern "C" fn rustls_platform_verifier_server_cert_verifier(
    verifier_out: *mut *mut rustls_server_cert_verifier,
) -> rustls_result {
    ffi_panic_boundary! {
        let verifier_out = try_mut_from_ptr_ptr!(verifier_out);
        let verifier = Arc::new(rustls_platform_verifier::Verifier::new());
        set_boxed_mut_ptr(verifier_out, verifier);
        rustls_result::Ok
    }
}

However, it still might be considered out-of-scope for this project, or it might be too new of a project to include here.

@cpu
Copy link
Member

cpu commented Apr 8, 2024

👋 thanks for opening the issue.

From my perspective I think it makes sense to offer as an optional feature. The platform verifier crate is young, but now that it's published in crates.io, is gradually being adopted in other crates (e.g. hyper-rustls and quinn).

I think it would be helpful to hear what @jsha thinks since the work would require his review to be merged.

@jsha
Copy link
Collaborator

jsha commented Apr 8, 2024 via email

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants