> If that's an example of "working API" for someone, it's no surprise
> websphere blows.
There's no need to be rude.
And WebSphere doesn't use OpenSSL.
/r$
--
STSM, DataPower Chief Programmer
Websphere DataPower SOA Appliances
http://www.ibm.com/software/integration/datapower/
___
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Darryl Miles wrote:
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > Can this be worked around? Sure. With some woodoo/ugly magic code in the
> > async status code handling. You *cannot* always wait for read&write, since
> > you'll be exiting the event selection loop immediately, every time.
> > Yo
David Schwartz wrote:
If I'm misunderstanding the man page and/or the source code
please speak up.
My man page says:
If the underlying BIO is non-blocking, SSL_shutdown() will also
return
when the underlying BIO could not satisfy the needs of SSL_shutdown()
to continue the
> If I'm misunderstanding the man page and/or the source code
> please speak up.
My man page says:
If the underlying BIO is non-blocking, SSL_shutdown() will also
return
when the underlying BIO could not satisfy the needs of SSL_shutdown()
to continue the handshake. In this
Davide Libenzi wrote:
Can this be worked around? Sure. With some woodoo/ugly magic code in the
async status code handling. You *cannot* always wait for read&write, since
you'll be exiting the event selection loop immediately, every time.
You need to bolt-in the shutdown logic *outside* the shutd
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Darryl Miles wrote:
> Richard Salz wrote:
> > > double/triple check over it). Whatever fix you guys come up with, as
> > long
> > > as SSL_shutdown() ends up having sane (somehow aligned to SSL_read,
> > > SSL_write, etc...) semantics WRT non-blocking BIOs.
> >
> > Nope. Ma
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007, Darryl Miles wrote:
> The "Are you new here?" I find somewhat offputting, even through it was not
> directed at me. Richard is obviously old here and set in his ways and thinks
> that his OpenSSL library is better than it actually is.
Oh, don't worry about that ;) I'm used to
Richard Salz wrote:
double/triple check over it). Whatever fix you guys come up with, as
long
as SSL_shutdown() ends up having sane (somehow aligned to SSL_read,
SSL_write, etc...) semantics WRT non-blocking BIOs.
Nope. Maybe a new shutdown that has your semantics, but do not break
existing
Davide Libenzi wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007, Richard Salz wrote:
I seriously doubt ppl are using SSL_shutdown() with non-blocking BIOs,
together with the current API semantics. Seriously.
Are you new here? This library has been around for more than a decade.
There are *lots* of people using the
What is the difference between this an my patch from a year or so ago ?
http://marc.info/?t=11509972822&r=1&w=2 '[PATCH] Fix for
SSL_shutdown() with non-blocking not returning -1'
http://marc.info/?t=11515400401&r=1&w=2 '[PATCH2] Fix for
SSL_shutdown() with non-blocking not returnin
10 matches
Mail list logo
