On June 14, 2004 10:20 am, Kevin Stefanik wrote:
[snip]
> #define IMPLEMENT_DYNAMIC_BIND_FN(fn) \
> int bind_engine(ENGINE *e, const char *id, const dynamic_fns *fns) { \
> if (ERR_get_implementation() != fns->err_fns) \
> { \
> if(!CRYPTO_set_mem_functions(fns->mem_fns.malloc_cb, \
> fns->mem_fns.realloc_cb, fns->mem_fns.free_cb)) \
> return 0; \
> CRYPTO_set_locking_callback(fns->lock_fns.lock_locking_cb); \
> CRYPTO_set_add_lock_callback(fns->lock_fns.lock_add_lock_cb); \
>
> CRYPTO_set_dynlock_create_callback(fns->lock_fns.dynlock_create_cb);
> \ CRYPTO_set_dynlock_lock_callback(fns->lock_fns.dynlock_lock_cb); \
> CRYPTO_set_dynlock_destroy_callback(fns->lock_fns.dynlock_destroy_cb);
> \ if(!CRYPTO_set_ex_data_implementation(fns->ex_data_fns)) \
> return 0; \
> if(!ERR_set_implementation(fns->err_fns)) return 0; \
> } \
> if(!fn(e,id)) return 0; \
> return 1; }
>
> If the library is statically compiled, then the ERR_get_implementation
> will initialize the static err_fns to err_defaults. The
> ERR_set_implementation will then report an error because that static
> err_fns is not null.
But ERR_set_implementation() should not be called because
ERR_get_implementation() should equal fns->err_fns in the static case and
so the code path should skip straight to the call to fn(). However ...
> I think this effectively makes statically linked engines impossible -
> which I really don't mind. Can we just always use shared engines as of
> 0.9.7d?
Actually it seems to me to be the other way around. It appears that this
has probably broken the use of shared-lib engines on any platforms where
the loaded shared-lib has its own copy of libcrypto functions/state. What
exactly have you been seeing to make you believe it's the other way
round?
Thanks for the head's up, we'll need to look into this - but I'd also like
to know why you're seeing (or think you're seeing) errors in the
statically-compiled case? Can you alter the macro to display the values
of ERR_get_implementation() and fns->err_fns before that if(){} branch,
as those values should match in the static case.
Cheers,
Geoff
--
Geoff Thorpe
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.geoffthorpe.net/
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
