On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:48 AM Matt Caswell via RT <r...@openssl.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Sounds good to me.
> *Possibly* we could also rename SSL_set_bio() to SSL_set0_bio() with a
> deprecated compatibility macro.
>
I dunno, SSL_set_bio is kind of weird all around. :-) I suppose it is
closer to a set0 than a set1, but set0 doesn't typically have all these
no-op cases around taking ownership and such.
> Matt
>
>
> --
> Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=4572
> Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted
>
>
--
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
