On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
>> [seggelm...@fh-muenster.de - Mon Apr 26 11:04:29 2010]:
>>
>>
>> You're right. The loop was written in the assumption that the control
>> variable in the for loop can become -1. Since the variable type was
>> changed to unsigned long, that didn't work anymore and my fix also
>> didn't correct that. Here's an updated version.
>>
>
> The initial patch was changed because it didn't compile without warnings
> with the stricter developer compiler options and my "fix" unfortunately
> broke it. Can you check there aren't any warnings with the revised
> patch? On OpenSSL 1.0.0 you can use the --strict-warnings option to
> Configure.
After modifying several other files which threw warnings, I was able to compile
it with the strict option. There is still a warning which can be fixed by
adding casts the code in dtls1_reassemble() in line 662 to 666:
RSMBLY_BITMASK_MARK(frag->reassembly, (long) msg_hdr->frag_off,
(long) (msg_hdr->frag_off + frag_len));
RSMBLY_BITMASK_IS_COMPLETE(frag->reassembly, (long) msg_hdr->msg_len,
is_complete);
Regards,
Robin
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
