In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker writes: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:06:55 +0300, >Solar Designer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > solar> --- openssl-0.9.6h/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c Thu Nov 28 11:06:30 2002 > solar> +++ openssl-0.9.6i/crypto/x509/x509_vfy.c Tue Dec 10 11:28:16 2002 > solar> @@ -897,7 +897,7 @@ > solar> ctx->chain=NULL; > solar> } > solar> CRYPTO_free_ex_data(x509_store_ctx_method,ctx,&(ctx->ex_data)); > solar> - OPENSSL_cleanse(&ctx->ex_data,sizeof(CRYPTO_EX_DATA)); > solar> + memset(&ctx->ex_data,0,sizeof(CRYPTO_EX_DATA)); > solar> } > solar> > solar> Is this change intentional, it appears to undo the change introduced > solar> between 0.9.6g and 0.9.6h? > > Yes. ex_data is a pointer, need I say more? :-)
What's wrong with the much simpler "ctx->ex_data = 0;" then? -- Harald Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://blog.cfrq.net/chk/ What's another word for synonym? ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
