On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:21:48PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> 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.
> >
[snip]
>
> 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
>
Using
http://www.openssl.org/docs/ssl/SSL_shutdown.html is probably nearer
to how it's supposed to look (no distro patches) and similarly lists
values of 0, 1, -1.
Actually, now I look at what followed (perl-5.16, LFS from 29th
April) I see the following after the SEE ALSO -
POD ERRORS
Hey! The above document had some coding errors, which are
explained below:
Around line 100:
You have '=item 0' instead of the expected '=item 2'
Around line 107:
Expected '=item 3'
But thanks for prompting me to look at fedora again - the reason
why the fedora manfix doesn't all apply is
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/openssl.git/plain/openssl-1.0.1e-backports.patch
which did the initial movements. Better to use Martin's patch (12K)
instead of fedora's 12K plus the (debian backports?) 7.9K.
--
das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
