On 14/06/16 21:30, David Benjamin via RT wrote:
> For OpenSSL master, I believe it'd also work to add an s->rbio != s->wbio
> check to SSL_set_rbio, but I think those are worse semantics for
> SSL_set_{rbio,wbio}. They are new APIs, so, before it's too late, give them
> clear semantics like "SSL_set_rbio takes ownership of its argument",
> consistent with "set0" functions, rather than a mix of "set0" and "set1".These look like good changes. I'm wondering whether we should actually rename SSL_set_rbio() and SSL_set_wbio() to SSL_set0_rbio() and SSL_set0_wbio() - especially since they are new to 1.1.0 so not released yet. *Possibly* we could also rename SSL_set_bio() to SSL_set0_bio() with a deprecated compatibility macro. Matt -- Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4572 Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
