On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 04:02:05PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote: > > In the case of the test that you ran above it looks like the code is > > waiting forever inside the openssl call SSL_accept() which is made in > > __perdition_ssl_connection(). The timeouts in perdition actually only > > operate on select() and pre-date the introduction of SSL. I'm scratching > > my head for a fix for this one. Any suggestions would be welcome. I'm > > hoping not to have to resort to setitimer(). > > That was pretty much the response I expected. But when filing such a bug > report one always hopes that the maintainer or upstream developer will have > some secret knowledge that allows an easy fix.
Unfortunately no secret knowledge this time. > Is GNUTLS any better in this regard? I won't rule out the possibility of > submitting a patch to replace openssl with gnutls if you would be willing to > accept it. NB I'm not making any commitment to write such a patch, I'm > overloaded at the moment and most things I want to do don't get done. I'm quite happy to consider replacing openssl with GNUTLS. Although I don't know if it would solve the problem at hand nor how many bonus problems it might create. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
