Although maybe the simple answer is to read into a temporary 32 KB buffer and
then malloc and copy.
--
View this message in context:
http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/Find-size-of-available-data-prior-to-ssl-read-tp61722p61734.html
Sent from the OpenSSL - User mailing list archive at
I want to change the memory alloc/debug things.
Right now there are several undocumented functions to allow you to swap-out the
malloc/realloc/free routines, wrappers that call those routines, debug versions
of those wrappers, and functions to set the set-options versions of those
functions.
Thanks to Michael and Kurt for explanatory comments.
Is there an available setting that gives the upper limit on the amount of
data that will be obtained by a single ssl_read()?
The data stream is SQL requests, and often these are quite small, but they
can run to megabytes. I need to malloc a
> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
> Of counterpoint
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 04:51
>
> Although maybe the simple answer is to read into a temporary 32 KB buffer and
> then malloc and copy.
That, more or less, was my recommendation in my
On 17/12/2015 10:36, counterpoint wrote:
Thanks to Michael and Kurt for explanatory comments.
Is there an available setting that gives the upper limit on the amount of
data that will be obtained by a single ssl_read()?
The data stream is SQL requests, and often these are quite small, but they
On 17/12/2015 10:28, Salz, Rich wrote:
I want to change the memory alloc/debug things.
Right now there are several undocumented functions to allow you to
swap-out the malloc/realloc/free routines, wrappers that call those
routines, debug versions of those wrappers, and functions to set the
Thanks, that makes sense. My ability to optimise is constrained - the system
is a product so I do not know what the actual pattern of usage will be. But
there is a limit on buffer size within the system. It's a defined symbol, so
can be altered from the default of 32 KB, but only by recompiling
> From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf
> Of counterpoint
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 11:35
>
> Thanks, that makes sense. My ability to optimise is constrained - the system
> is a product so I do not know what the actual pattern of usage will be. But
>
Thanks, very helpful. We only support 64 bit.
--
View this message in context:
http://openssl.6102.n7.nabble.com/Find-size-of-available-data-prior-to-ssl-read-tp61722p61746.html
Sent from the OpenSSL - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
> I don't need it so I don't object. But if anyone objects, you could write a
> ...
Good point!
> I guess this is because that interface is not a part of a commercial grade
> full
> featured SSL/TLS and general purpose crypto library, it is just a means to do
> quality assurance on said
On 17/12/2015 19:03, Salz, Rich wrote:
I don't need it so I don't object. But if anyone objects, you could write a ...
Good point!
I guess this is because that interface is not a part of a commercial grade full
featured SSL/TLS and general purpose crypto library, it is just a means to do
> > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/450
>
> This seems much more sane.
I'll settle for less insane :)
___
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 08:16:50PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/450
> >
> > This seems much more sane.
>
> I'll settle for less insane :)
That is, I think, the best you can do. Some allocations might have
taken place by the time a wrapper or
Hello,
I have read about the use of FIPS_rsa_x931_generate_key_ex() for 186-4
compliance. We are using OpenSSL 1.0.1e with the fips-2.0.9 module. Would
it make functional sense using those versions to patch RSA_generate_key_ex()
(../crypto/rsa/rsa_gen.c) to have:
#ifdef OPENSSL_FIPS
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 04:26:21PM -0500, jonetsu wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I have read about the use of FIPS_rsa_x931_generate_key_ex() for 186-4
> compliance. We are using OpenSSL 1.0.1e with the fips-2.0.9 module. Would
> it make functional sense using those versions to patch
Hello,
I have been trying to install a product named wanguard and each time am
starting a collector I receive this error message:
segfault at efe000 ip 7ffb571e479c sp 7ffced00dcf0 error 4 in
libcrypto.so.1.0.0[7ffb57166000+1cb000]
And the collector stops immediately.
Has anyone
16 matches
Mail list logo
