> [seggelm...@fh-muenster.de - Mon Aug 30 16:26:24 2010]: > > > On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:32 PM, Stephen Henson via RT wrote: > > >> [seggelm...@fh-muenster.de - Fri Aug 27 11:34:17 2010]: > >> > >> Unfortunately, there was newer code which was not yet covered by > the > >> patch. This caused an abbreviated handshake to fail. > >> > > > > Applied now, thanks. > > > > Note that since we need to retain binary compatibility between 1.0.0 > and > > 1.0.1 we will need to either avoid having to add a new field to > ssl.h or > > move it to the end of the structure. > > > > As things are any application accessing a field after the new member > > would misbehave. > > Do you need a patch which moves the "int renegotiate;" to the end of > the struct for 1.0.1? >
No, I was just wondering if it was possible to achieve the same functionality without adding any new fields to the SSL structure? For example by adding flags or new values to the existing new_session field? Steve. -- Dr Stephen N. Henson. OpenSSL project core developer. Commercial tech support now available see: http://www.openssl.org ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
