On Oct 20, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Sander Temme via RT wrote:
Dear OpenSSL developers, I would like to propose the following patch to engines/e_chil.c:
-- Polite nag --I have been trying to raise this topic, on the list and through RT, since August. I have had no reaction from any of the folks I see commit to OpenSSL CVS.
While I appreciate that you are all very busy, would one of you please consider this extremely simple patch and fold it in?
Thank you very much, Sander -- End nag --
Index: engines/e_chil.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/openssl/cvs/openssl/engines/e_chil.c,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -r1.5 e_chil.c
--- engines/e_chil.c 18 Mar 2006 14:22:20 -0000 1.5
+++ engines/e_chil.c 20 Oct 2008 19:12:11 -0000
@@ -588,12 +588,6 @@
hwcrhk_globals.mutex_release = hwcrhk_mutex_unlock;
hwcrhk_globals.mutex_destroy = hwcrhk_mutex_destroy;
}
- else if (CRYPTO_get_locking_callback() != NULL)
- {
-
HWCRHKerr(HWCRHK_F_HWCRHK_INIT,HWCRHK_R_LOCKING_MISSING);
- ERR_add_error_data(1,"You HAVE to add dynamic locking
callbacks
via CRYPTO_set_dynlock_{create,lock,destroy}_callback()");
- goto err;
- }
}
/* Try and get a context - if not, we may have a DSO but no
The effect will be that the CHIL engine can be loaded into any
program, whether multithreaded or not. It does not release the
developer from the obligation to set up the dynamic locking
callbacks. It just stops the engine from trying to be its brother's
keeper, which it has no business doing.
Please consider this patch against the CVS trunk for backport to
0.9.8.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.temme.net/sander/ PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
