It could return zero, even if now it doesn't and I'm not sure that's true.
Closing ticket.
--
Ticket here: http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2749
Please log in as guest with password guest if prompted
--
openssl-dev mailing list
To unsubscribe:
John Gardiner Myers via RT wrote:
However my point of view is:
Actually there is. It is important for OpenSSL to convey back to the
application when it has successfully carried out all the following tasks:
* to encode SSL control packet (with the way OpenSSL is imlemented
this actually
John Gardiner Myers via RT wrote:
There's no good reason for SSL_shutdown() to ever return a value of 0.
The attached patch simplifies things.
One point of view is:
Maybe so. But this is how it has always worked and is documented as
such. Your patch does not attempt to update the
John Gardiner Myers via RT wrote:
There's no good reason for SSL_shutdown() to ever return a value of 0.
The attached patch simplifies things.
One point of view is:
Maybe so. But this is how it has always worked and is documented as
such. Your patch does not attempt to update the
On 4/25/2012 1:21 AM, Darryl Miles via RT wrote:
John Gardiner Myers via RT wrote:
There's no good reason for SSL_shutdown() to ever return a value of 0.
The attached patch simplifies things.
One point of view is:
Maybe so. But this is how it has always worked and is documented as
such.
There's no good reason for SSL_shutdown() to ever return a value of 0.
The attached patch simplifies things.
--- openssl-1.0.1-beta3-0orig/ssl/s3_lib.c 2012-02-10 12:08:49.0
-0800
+++ openssl-1.0.1-beta3/ssl/s3_lib.c2012-03-02 11:19:53.847954000 -0800
@@ -4112,7 +4112,7 @@
