BIND 10 #936: Make libcryptolink compatible with botan 1.9 as well as 1.8

[BIND 10 Development]

#936: Make libcryptolink compatible with botan 1.9 as well as 1.8
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
                   Reporter:  jelte  |                 Owner:  jreed
                       Type:         |                Status:  reviewing
  enhancement                        |             Milestone:
                   Priority:  major  |            Resolution:
                  Component:         |             Sensitive:  0
  Unclassified                       |           Sub-Project:  DNS
                   Keywords:         |  Estimated Difficulty:  0.0
            Defect Severity:  N/A    |           Total Hours:  0
Feature Depending on Ticket:         |
        Add Hours to Ticket:  0      |
                  Internal?:  0      |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jelte):

 * owner:  jelte => jreed


Comment:

 Replying to [comment:3 jreed]:
 > The build completed and make check passed using Solaris with GCC and
 Botan 1.9.17.
 >
 > My comments:
 >
 > - No longer need config.h included?
 >

 oh right, yeah, removed

 > - BOTAN_API_VERSION still in build error output  two places (get rid of
 uppercase and underscores?)
 >

 oops, changed it to just 'Unsupported Botan version, need 1.8 or higher';

 > - Do we need to report problem about 0 secret length?
 >
 > - Does it hurt to do that secret_len == 0 regardless of version?
 >

 i'm not sure about either; on the one hand, at least the HMAC RFC does not
 really specify (it says 'secret can be of any length', and that might
 include 0 (though it then goes on to say to not use a short one). I don't
 know if the rest of our system would actually allow such secrets to be
 specified, but more importantly, if we do use 1.8 is will bail out on 0
 length, and i'm not sure we should change behaviour depending on de
 backend version. (and we could not make tests i think, 0 is the only
 'wrong' length, really)

 > This appears to fix the two 1.9 incompatibility issues I previously saw.
 Thanks

 Cool

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://bind10.isc.org/ticket/936#comment:5>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development