Ken Moffat wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 08:56:35AM +0200, NP wrote: >> On 13-06-17 03:27, Ken Moffat wrote:
> The one exception is SSL_shutdown (3). Nico's patch lists the > return values as >1, >0, >-1. My amended patch causes them to be > listed as 1, 0, <0 (using E<lt>0 which I noticed in one of the other > pod files). That look reasonable, but in fact the version on my > installed system actually says: > > RETURN VALUES > The following return values can occur: > > 1. The shutdown was successfully completed. The "close > notify" alert was sent and the peer's "close notify" > alert was received. > > 2. The shutdown is not yet finished. Call > SSL_shutdown() for a second time, if a bidirectional > shutdown shall be performed. The output of > SSL_get_error(3) may be misleading, as an erroneous > SSL_ERROR_SYSCALL may be flagged even though no > error occurred. > > 3. -1 > > The shutdown was not successful because a fatal > error occurred either at the protocol level or a > connection failure occurred. It can also occur if > action is need to continue the operation for non- > blocking BIOs. Call SSL_get_error(3) with the > return value ret to find out the reason. > > To me, that standard version makes less than zero sense : if 1,2,3 > are the order in which possible return codes are listed, what are > the codes being described ? > > Anyone got any opinions on SSL_shutdown (3), even just a bare "mine > also says the return values are 1, 2, 3 with -1" ? I check these with Google: man SSL_shutdown A good link is http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?SSL_shutdown+3 Compare with that. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
