Re: Minor SSL fixes

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:46:50PM +0200, Christopher Faulet wrote: > ssl_ctx_lru_tree could be defined outside the ifdef, but it is only used > when SNI extension is available. So there is no reason to initialize it > if there is no SNI. > > Then, when SNI is available, the tree can be NULL if

Re: Minor SSL fixes

Le 09/10/2015 12:19, Willy Tarreau a écrit : On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:59:00AM +0200, Christopher Faulet wrote: Le 09/10/2015 10:27, Willy Tarreau a écrit : Hi Christopher, I applied the first two ones, but the last one seems to be doing a lot of stuff at the same time. It's not even clear to

Re: Minor SSL fixes

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:59:00AM +0200, Christopher Faulet wrote: > Le 09/10/2015 10:27, Willy Tarreau a écrit : > >Hi Christopher, > > > >I applied the first two ones, but the last one seems to be doing > >a lot of stuff at the same time. It's not even clear to me whether > >it fixes something o

Re: Minor SSL fixes

Le 09/10/2015 10:27, Willy Tarreau a écrit : Hi Christopher, I applied the first two ones, but the last one seems to be doing a lot of stuff at the same time. It's not even clear to me whether it fixes something or improves something or does both, but the review is quite hard. Is it possible to

Re: Minor SSL fixes

Hi Christopher, I applied the first two ones, but the last one seems to be doing a lot of stuff at the same time. It's not even clear to me whether it fixes something or improves something or does both, but the review is quite hard. Is it possible to cut it into functional parts ? In practice we a

Minor SSL fixes

Hi, Here are some SSL fixes. The last one is a fix to a bug reported in a previous thread[1]. [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/haproxy@formilux.org/msg19243.html Regards, -- Christopher Faulet >From 4994166ef6be91e768607c67e431d5fc20fbde1e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christopher Faulet Da