Yeah I've raised this with Richard to get his sense of what he intended. Please raise a ticket on RT if you like and assign it to either of us.
Cheers, Geoff On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 11:44 -0400, Brad House wrote: > I'd have to look at the context of what is actually happening > here but it looks like by intention, filespec1 should be allowed > to be NULL as it can be retrieved from dso, but I see no additional > sanity checks for filespec2, most likely, I would assume, the > filespec1 reference on line 397 should _actually_ be filespec2, but > again, that's just a cursory look (without evaluating how DSO_merge > is actually called). > > -Brad > > Salivar.William wrote: > > That is what I got out of it. What is the process for getting code > > issues submitted and resolved for OpenSSL? > > > > > > > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Sendroiu Eugen > > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:41 AM > > *To:* [email protected] > > *Subject:* Re: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto) > > > > > > > > If filespec1 is NULL, it doesn't matter what dso is, it will not pass > > the first if, so the latter checks for dso and filespec1 are useless. [snip] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
