Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Richard Salz wrote:
I seriously doubt ppl are using SSL_shutdown() with non-blocking BIOs,
together with the current API semantics. Seriously.
Are you new here? This library has been around for more than a decade.
There are *lots* of people using the current API with non-blocking.
Which API are you talking about? SSL_shutdown? If yes, please show how
elegantly non-blocking BIOs code can cope with the current SSL_shutdown
semantics.
I have to agree with you Davide.
Please examine my sslregress program I posted to the list over the past
16 months which clearly provides a way to demonstrate the insane
SSL_shutdown() semantics for non-blocking and clearly demonstrate the
problem/bug. This sslregress application can also be used to test,
prove, verify, fix any future API breakage that may result from these
patches just in case someone is not sure of future breakage then split
write your test case up into sslregress and prove it to everyone.
The "Are you new here?" I find somewhat offputting, even through it was
not directed at me. Richard is obviously old here and set in his ways
and thinks that his OpenSSL library is better than it actually is.
Maybe Richard should go and take a look at the previous threads and
direct any comments in a constructive technical way than to try and
guess what he thinks is right/wrong about the current SSL_shutdown()
mechanism when applied to a non-blocking socket.
So it would seem on this particular issue I would treat Richard's
comments with the contempt they deserve.
Darryl
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
