At 09:36 AM 12/11/02 +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 11 Dec 2002 08:24:47 +0000, Bertie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >bertie> In view of the fact that the chil engine code is only >bertie> threadsafe if the dynlock callbacks are implemented, and that >bertie> it is unlikely that openssl application developers will get >bertie> round to providing these solely for the benefit of the chil >bertie> engine would it be please be possible (I'm begging) to apply >bertie> the part of the patch (#381) I supplied which allows the chil >bertie> engine to use one static lock if dynlocks are not supported by >bertie> the app. This patch could be reversed (in 0.9.8 ?) when it is >bertie> clear to multithreaded app developers that they need to supply >bertie> dynlock upcalls for threadsafety. > >Uhmm, I think I provided a different solution: if the chil engine >detects that the application provided callbacks for static locks bur >not for dynamic ones, it will refuse to load. Did you test that?
Yep, this solution works if you are an application developer wanting to use chil engine. This is not much help if you are say an Apache user who wanted to use an nCipher HSM to protect their Apache keys - They will get your error message but won't be able to fix the problem, they will phone nCipher support and we'll end up giving them a patch to apply. Bertie ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
