On Fri, 19 Dec 2014, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
for example, metaslot on Solaris is always 0 so slot-id=0
would be reliable there to use to access the soft token. Jan.
It is the zeroth slot in the list of slots not a slotid with a value of
0 - the distinction is subtle.
I don't think we should have slot-id, it isn't stable and I know that
some vendors use random values.
Jan,
Given that this was the main argument for adding slot-id, is there any
other reason for adding it? Aren't the description and manufacturer
sufficient for the applications which want to restrict to a specific
slot?
hi Nikos, I still think that its ID is 0 since I've been using
it that way in C_GetMechanismInfo(0, ...). However, my point is that
some modules MAY provide stable IDs and since there is no serial
number as for token then description/manufacturer may not be enough to
uniquely identify a slot. That's why it could be useful in certain
situations.
I somehow think that people would end up using it anyway and
partly for that reason we added "pin-value" which was initially
rejected, too. If we define slot-id we avoid different parsers to use
different names like "slot", "slotid", or "slot-id". That's why I
think it might be better to include it with a proper note.
regards, Jan.
--
Jan Pechanec <jan(_dot_)pechanec(_at_)oracle(_dot_)com>