> On Aug 17, 2018, at 10:52 PM, Daurnimator <quae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I understand the current design; but I'm left wondering why it has an > additional store member when VERIFY_PARAMS has the field there > already. > The design would seem to be much cleaner if all criteria for > verification are taken from a single object. They are taken from a single object, the X509 store associated with the SSL_CTX, which is used to verify the peer per SSL_CTX_set_verify(). -- Viktor. -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
