Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3882] [BUGFIX] lh_SSL_SESSION_delete() not checked

2015-05-31 Thread Short, Todd via RT
No, The second code sample removes a matching instance, but not necessarily the same instance. If they are not the same instance, then it would need to be re-inserted in and else clause. This is a fine distinction. This would leave to having the list and hash not contain the same contents:

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3882] [BUGFIX] lh_SSL_SESSION_delete() not checked

2015-05-31 Thread Richard Levitte via RT
Hmm, but does it? If you look for the comment '/* We *are* in trouble ... */' in ssl_sess.c, you'll see that there is a similar kind of protection in place already at the time of insert. So quite frankly and with all respect, I'm not sure if this particular fix does anything of value any longer.

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3882] [BUGFIX] lh_SSL_SESSION_delete() not checked

2015-05-31 Thread Richard Levitte via RT
I'm not sure how that can happen, as each SSL_SESSION in that lhash will have unique content. This is assured by the way lh_insert functions and by ssl_session_cmp (which gets called by getrn in lhash.c, via the function pointer cf). So while your suggestion will most probably work as a band aid,

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3882] [BUGFIX] lh_SSL_SESSION_delete() not checked

2015-05-31 Thread Richard Levitte via RT
You solution does the following: if (lh_SSL_SESSION_retrieve(p-cache, s) == s) { (void)lh_SSL_SESSION_delete(p-cache, s); ... Would you agree that the following does the same? if (lh_SSL_SESSION_delete(p-cache, s) == s) { ... On Sat May 30 09:48:06 2015, tsh...@akamai.com wrote: Hello

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3882] [BUGFIX] lh_SSL_SESSION_delete() not checked

2015-05-31 Thread Short, Todd via RT
We (Akamai) had a bad session compare function at one point; the compare was fixed, but also added this change to protect the LHASH. So, yes, this can only really happen if one has a bad comparison function. -- -Todd Short // tsh...@akamai.com // Sent from my iPhone // One if by land, two if

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3864] OS390 Bug: Make fails

2015-05-31 Thread Richard Levitte via RT
It's unclear to me what needs to change. Would you mind helping us figure it out? On Tue May 26 20:06:21 2015, rhida...@indra.es wrote: Make Output (tail ): Makefile: line 206: Defined macro CLEARENV=TOP= unset TOP $${LIB+LIB} $${LIBS+LIBS} $${INCLUDE+INCLUDE} $${INCLUDES+INCLUDES}

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3882] [BUGFIX] lh_SSL_SESSION_delete() not checked

2015-05-31 Thread Short, Todd
No, The second code sample removes a matching instance, but not necessarily the same instance. If they are not the same instance, then it would need to be re-inserted in and else clause. This is a fine distinction. This would leave to having the list and hash not contain the same contents:

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3887] PATCH: rsautl and intelligent retry for Public Key parse after Traditional/Subject Public Key Info parse fails

2015-05-31 Thread noloa...@gmail.com via RT
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Richard Levitte via RT r...@openssl.org wrote: Nice idea, I'm however thinking that much of the trying different formats could be moved to load_key / load_pubkey, all that would be needed is a keyformat denoting try anything. -1, perhaps? I like the idea,

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3887] PATCH: rsautl and intelligent retry for Public Key parse after Traditional/Subject Public Key Info parse fails

2015-05-31 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Richard Levitte via RT r...@openssl.org wrote: Nice idea, I'm however thinking that much of the trying different formats could be moved to load_key / load_pubkey, all that would be needed is a keyformat denoting try anything. -1, perhaps? I like the idea,

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3887] PATCH: rsautl and intelligent retry for Public Key parse after Traditional/Subject Public Key Info parse fails

2015-05-31 Thread noloa...@gmail.com via RT
I submitted this earlier, but I forgot to tweak the docs. The docs were missing the -keyform option, and they needed the behavior change documented. I also fixed a typo in the patch. The following was missing an 'else if': if(keyformat == FORMAT_PEM) { next_format = FORMAT_PEMRSA;

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3887] PATCH: rsautl and intelligent retry for Public Key parse after Traditional/Subject Public Key Info parse fails

2015-05-31 Thread Richard Levitte via RT
Nice idea, I'm however thinking that much of the trying different formats could be moved to load_key / load_pubkey, all that would be needed is a keyformat denoting try anything. -1, perhaps? On Sun May 31 09:46:28 2015, noloa...@gmail.com wrote: apps.c has a couple of parsing routines called

[openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3887] PATCH: rsautl and intelligent retry for Public Key parse after Traditional/Subject Public Key Info parse fails

2015-05-31 Thread noloa...@gmail.com via RT
apps.c has a couple of parsing routines called load_pubkey and load_key. rsautl uses those routines. However, there's no option in rsautil to use anything other than a ASN.1/DER or PEM encoded traditional key (or subject public key info). The code paths are present, we just can't seem to get to

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3883] [PATCH] Add IPv4/IPv6:port-based client cache

2015-05-31 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 09:48:15AM +0200, Short, Todd via RT wrote: Hello OpenSSL Org: This is a change that Akamai has made to its implementation of OpenSSL. Version: master branch Description: Add IPv4/IPv6:port-based client cache Update client cache to use IPv4/v6 addresses via

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3883] [PATCH] Add IPv4/IPv6:port-based client cache

2015-05-31 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 06:06:03AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: * Perhaps other issues too, but this is far from ready it seems. Also why is line 399 of ssl_client_cache.c setting s-hit = 1? -- Viktor. ___ openssl-dev mailing list To

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3883] [PATCH] Add IPv4/IPv6:port-based client cache

2015-05-31 Thread Salz, Rich via RT
(Documentation is in the source files, not a .pod) Do you have code to produce usable manpages from the embedded documentation? We can't ask users to read the source. I believe Todd meant for the test program. * The copyright notice does not refer to any license that would allow

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3883] [PATCH] Add IPv4/IPv6:port-based client cache

2015-05-31 Thread Short, Todd via RT
Many of the changes Akamai has did not include proper documentation. I have noted these and will send updated patches when done. I will also update the copyrights. -- -Todd Short // tsh...@akamai.com // One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet. On May 31, 2015, at 9:27 AM,

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl.org #3883] [PATCH] Add IPv4/IPv6:port-based client cache

2015-05-31 Thread Short, Todd
Many of the changes Akamai has did not include proper documentation. I have noted these and will send updated patches when done. I will also update the copyrights. -- -Todd Short // tsh...@akamai.com // One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet. On May 31, 2015, at 9:27 AM,