On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 03:35:29PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > > I seriously doubt ppl are using SSL_shutdown() with non-blocking BIOs, > > together with the current API semantics. Seriously. > > Well, how do you suppose they're terminating their SSL sessions? If you > look at the archive of this list, you'll see evidence that, in fact, > there are users of the non-blocking interface -- pretty much all of whom > find it poorly designed and implemented, but, they're users nonetheless. > > I find the API resulting from your change considerably better. I just am > concerned about breaking other people's existing code. And, unfortunately, > the text in the RETURN VALUES does actually document how the existing > (stupid) API works. > > On balance maybe it's just best to apply your change. It's hardly up to > _me_ whether that happens in the public OpenSSL distribution! It does > look correct to me and I've applied it to my local tree, since I control > all the code that's linked into. ;-)
It doesn't have to be *my* patch to be applied (I actually suggest a double/triple check over it). Whatever fix you guys come up with, as long as SSL_shutdown() ends up having sane (somehow aligned to SSL_read, SSL_write, etc...) semantics WRT non-blocking BIOs. - Davide ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
