Re: Any way to fix bug 46950 without a change to tcnative?

2009-04-16 Thread Mark Thomas
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Mark Thomas wrote: Folks, I have been looking at bug 46950 [1]. Everything is fine with the BIO connector but with APR the renegotiation fails to trigger a request for the user's certificate. I assume that this is because the socket is

Re: Any way to fix bug 46950 without a change to tcnative?

2009-04-16 Thread Remy Maucherat
On Thu, 2009-04-16 at 11:38 +0100, Mark Thomas wrote: Thanks for the confirmation. The request is already read and buffered. We 'just' need to renegotiation to require an SSL cert. I'll try and take a look at this but I'll probably need some help with the C code. First step will be to get

Any way to fix bug 46950 without a change to tcnative?

2009-04-15 Thread Mark Thomas
Folks, I have been looking at bug 46950 [1]. Everything is fine with the BIO connector but with APR the renegotiation fails to trigger a request for the user's certificate. I assume that this is because the socket is still associated with an SSLContext where the SSLVerifyClient is something other

Re: Any way to fix bug 46950 without a change to tcnative?

2009-04-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
Mark Thomas wrote: Folks, I have been looking at bug 46950 [1]. Everything is fine with the BIO connector but with APR the renegotiation fails to trigger a request for the user's certificate. I assume that this is because the socket is still associated with an SSLContext where the

Re: Any way to fix bug 46950 without a change to tcnative?

2009-04-15 Thread William A. Rowe, Jr.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Mark Thomas wrote: Folks, I have been looking at bug 46950 [1]. Everything is fine with the BIO connector but with APR the renegotiation fails to trigger a request for the user's certificate. I assume that this is because the socket is still associated with an