On Monday 14 June 2004 07:35 pm, Geoff Thorpe wrote:
> On June 14, 2004 12:00 pm, Kevin Stefanik wrote:
> > I just realized that we may not have been discussing the same issue.
> > When I was referring to dynamically or statically linked engines, I was
> > referring to how the engines were linked to libcrypto.  In all cases,
> > we're discussing a dynamic engine contained in a shared library, so I
> > think we agree on the problem.
>
> Ah, phew. Zoltan sent some stuff to me, but I'll need to wait a couple of
> days until I have time to sift through this. However I'm pretty confident
> the 0.9.7 use of ERR_get_implementation() is bogus. What results have you
> had (if any) against cvs snapshots? As you've observed, there is a better
> mechanism in place there and depending on what I find when I get a chance
> to dig into Zoltan's mail, I may elect to just merge that aspect of the
> engine code back to 0.9.7 to address the problem. ï suivre ...


On 0.9.8, the engine at least loads.  I'll test with an actual card this 
evening, but I don't expect any problems.  In the meantime, is linking 
dynamically a viable solution?  Is the addition of that code just meant to 
enable the engine itself to be statically or dynamically linked into openssl 
but the dynmically linked engine would still need its own statically linked 
copies of the libcrypto stuff it uses?  Or can the engine now dynamically 
link to the libcrypto code it needs as well as being dynamically loaded into 
openssl?

If we can, we'll just dynamically link to libcrypto.  If we can't we'll just 
use our own dynamic_bind that doesn't call ERR_get_implementation.  In either 
case, is there a code test suitable for ./configure that you can recommend 
for identifying the problem?  If not, we'll just use the openssl version 
info, but a more precise method would be helpful.

Thanks for looking into this,
Kevin



______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to