On 11/30/2012 10:01 AM, Thomas Eckert wrote:
On 11/29/2012 08:18 PM, Stephen Henson via RT wrote:
Thanks for the report, I've applied a fix.
I've not applied the second part of the patch because then the return
variable "ret" is set to the return value of X509_verify_cert() which is
intentional.
Steve.
Hi and thanks for the fast reply. Would you please elaborate a bit on
what you refer to as 'second part' and 'ret = x509_verify_cert()' ? I
can't quite follow you there and it is important for me to understand
it because I have to deploy a patch to a customer machine ASAP. So if
there are side effects to the patch I suggested in in the attachment
of the bug report please let me know. Your work is very much
appreciated ! :-)
Regards,
Thomas
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
Never write mails before at least one coffee ... Please ignore the
previous mail ...
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
