On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 09:08:19 -0600 "Michael S. Zick" <open...@morethan.org> wrote: > On Fri December 9 2011, MK wrote: > > What makes you believe I am not handling this correctly? If the the > > call returns WANT_WRITE or WANT_READ, it gets called again with > > exactly the same parameters, which is exactly what that and all > > those other zillion posts recommend. This is why I set the err to > > EAGAIN, because the same thing must be done with a regular > > non-blocking socket. > > > > Because the write action might return __either__ want_read or > want_write and the read action might return __either__ want_read or > want_write. > > Just because the most current action was a "write" does not mean you > can presume the return was "want_write" - it might be "want_read". > > The same is true if the most current action was a "read".
Yes, but WRT non-blocking sockets (it says "non-blocking" in the OP), from the SSL_read man page: "As at any time a re-negotiation is possible, a call to SSL_read() can also cause write operations! The calling process then must repeat the call after taking appropriate action to satisfy the needs of SSL_read (). The action depends on the underlying BIO . When using a non-blocking socket, *nothing is to be done*..." You just call the read again, regardless of whether it is WANT_READ or WANT_WRITE. This is also quoted in the link you posted ;) The actual problem is solved in one of the other replies, but thanks for taking an interest. Sincerely, MK -- "Enthusiasm is not the enemy of the intellect." (said of Irving Howe) "The angel of history[...]is turned toward the past." (Walter Benjamin) ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
