Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

The first 'if' guarantees that filespec1 will not be NULL. And yet there are two tests for NULL in the code following the 'if'. This is from OpenSSL 0.9.8g. 393char *DSO_merge

RE: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

penssl.org Subject: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto) The first 'if' guarantees that filespec1 will not be NULL. And yet there are two tests for NULL in the code following the 'if'. This is from OpenSSL 0.9.8g. 393char *DSO_merge <http://engapp30:546

Re: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

Subject: RE: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto) _filtered { font-family:Calibri;} _filtered {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;} P.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Times New Roman", "serif";} LI.MsoNormal { FONT-SIZE:12pt;MARGIN:0in 0in 0pt;FONT-F

Re: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Sendroiu Eugen *Sent:* Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:41 AM *To:* openssl-dev@openssl.org *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

Re: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

t; > > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Sendroiu Eugen > > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:41 AM > > *To:* openssl-dev@openssl.org > > *Subject:* Re: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto) > > > > > >

RE: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

AM Subject: RE: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto) The first 'if' just guarantees that dso OR filespec1 are not NULL, each of those parameters could be NULL individually. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

RE: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad House Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 8:44 AM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto) 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

Re: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

wrote: brad> > That is what I got out of it. What is the process for getting code issues submitted and resolved for OpenSSL? brad> > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Sendroiu Eugen brad> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:41 AM brad> >

RE: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

spec2); 416} 417return(result); 418} -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Levitte Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:07 PM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Interesting lo

Re: Interesting logic in dso_lib.c (libcrypto)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:48:59 -0700, "Salivar.William" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: William.Salivar> I also noticed on line 413 and 414 that dso->meth is William.Salivar> not being checked for NULL before being dereferenced. It is impossible for a dso not to have a met