{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/briansmith/ring/issues/275","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/briansmith/ring","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/briansmith/ring/issues/275/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/briansmith/ring/issues/275/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/briansmith/ring/issues/275/events","html_url":"https://github.com/briansmith/ring/issues/275","id":172128515,"number":275,"title":"Rename RAND_bytes?","user":{"login":"twittner","id":132165,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/132165?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner","html_url":"https://github.com/twittner","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2016-08-19T13:13:30Z","updated_at":"2016-08-19T22:23:35Z","closed_at":"2016-08-19T22:23:35Z","body":"I wonder if the unmangled public extern function `ring::rand::RAND_bytes` should maybe be renamed? Otherwise linking both `ring` and `openssl` could easily lead to symbol conflicts and segmentation faults, e.g. if openssl's `SSL_CTX_new` runs into ring's `RAND_bytes`."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/briansmith/ring/issues/comments/241150282","html_url":"https://github.com/briansmith/ring/issues/275#issuecomment-241150282","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/briansmith/ring/issues/275","id":241150282,"user":{"login":"twittner","id":132165,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/132165?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner","html_url":"https://github.com/twittner","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/twittner/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-08-19T22:23:35Z","updated_at":"2016-08-19T22:23:35Z","body":"Thank you for your quick reply!\r\n\r\n> Then nothing will use RAND_bytes and it will be removed.\r\n>\r\n> So, I don't think we need to rename it, because we can just do that other work instead.\r\n\r\nSounds very good.\r\n\r\n> But, I would accept a PR to rename it if it is an urgent issue.\r\n\r\nIt is not urgent for me. I just ran into this problem and thought I should maybe ask about the name conflict. But I understand that things are in flux and this particular problem will eventually go away.\r\n\r\n> More generally, one cannot safely link OpenSSL, BoringSSL, LibreSSL, and/or ring together in the same program. Eventually we will probably change this in ring so that it can be safely used in an app that is using one of those other things.\r\n\r\nMaybe the README could mention this?\r\n\r\nThanks again for your explanation and for creating and maintaining this library!"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"twittner"}}