Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-19 Thread Matt Caswell
On 19/01/18 16:32, Michael Richardson wrote: > Matt Caswell wrote: > > Please raise a separate PR for this work. It *must* be portable though > > and work across all our platforms (e.g. including VisualC etc). My > > suggestion is that your

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-19 Thread Michael Richardson
Matt Caswell wrote: > Please raise a separate PR for this work. It *must* be portable though > and work across all our platforms (e.g. including VisualC etc). My > suggestion is that your BIO_CTRL_DGRAM_GET_ADDR/BIO_CTRL_DGRAM_SET_ADDR > ctrls should return an

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-19 Thread Matt Caswell
On 17/01/18 16:34, Michael Richardson wrote: > > > It seems like a fairly simple solution could solve this. Currently we > > have BIO_dgram_get_peer() which returns the peer's address for the last > > message read from a BIO. You could imagine a new call being introduced > > to

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-18 Thread Michael Richardson
Matt Caswell wrote: >> Matt Caswell wrote: >> >> Matt Caswell wrote: >> a) when the existing FD is >> >> connect(2) any future traffic to the bound >> port will get rejected >> >> with no port. So the application really has

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-17 Thread Michael Richardson
Matt Caswell wrote: >> Matt Caswell wrote: >> a) when the existing FD is >> connect(2) any future traffic to the bound >> port will get rejected >> with no port. So the application really has to >> open a new socket >> first. The application

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-16 Thread Matt Caswell
On 16/01/18 19:44, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Matt Caswell wrote: > >> a) when the existing FD is connect(2) any future traffic to the bound > >> port will get rejected with no port. So the application really has to > >> open a new socket first. The

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-16 Thread Michael Richardson
Matt Caswell wrote: >> a) when the existing FD is connect(2) any future traffic to the bound >> port will get rejected with no port. So the application really has to >> open a new socket first. The application can do this two ways: it can >> open a new socket

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-16 Thread Matt Caswell
On 16/01/18 15:32, Michael Richardson wrote: > > a) when the existing FD is connect(2) any future traffic to the bound port >will get rejected with no port. So the application really has to open a >new socket first. >The application can do this two ways: it can open a new socket on

Re: [openssl-dev] [openssl/openssl] Dtls listen refactor (#5024)

2018-01-16 Thread Michael Richardson
please see https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5024 mattcaswell asks on github: mattcaswell> I am unclear about the underlying premise of this PR: mcr> This patch refactors the DTLSv1_listen() to create an mcr> alternative API that is called DTLSv1_accept(). mcr>