This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub ,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
| Author | christian.heimes |
|---|---|
| Recipients | christian.heimes, yan12125 |
| Date | 2016年11月14日.16:02:45 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1479139365.98.0.842495449936.issue28689@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
A git bisect between OpenSSL_1_1_0b (good) and OpenSSL_1_1_0c (bad) revealed the breaking commit: $ git bisect good 122580ef71e4e5f355a1a104c9bfb36feee43759 is the first bad commit commit 122580ef71e4e5f355a1a104c9bfb36feee43759 Author: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org> Date: Fri Oct 21 13:25:19 2016 +0100 A zero return from BIO_read()/BIO_write() could be retryable A zero return from BIO_read()/BIO_write() could mean that an IO operation is retryable. A zero return from SSL_read()/SSL_write() means that the connection has been closed down (either cleanly or not). Therefore we should not propagate a zero return value from BIO_read()/BIO_write() back up the stack to SSL_read()/SSL_write(). This could result in a retryable failure being treated as fatal. Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org> (cherry picked from commit 4880672a9b41a09a0984b55e219f02a2de7ab75e) :040000 040000 8097bc37a0a2a3c1e6a8879ad49ee773001d8d52 8083927cb2eb28a71baa8b90b07b0962016d74b3 M ssl |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016年11月14日 16:02:46 | christian.heimes | set | recipients: + christian.heimes, yan12125 |
| 2016年11月14日 16:02:45 | christian.heimes | set | messageid: <1479139365.98.0.842495449936.issue28689@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016年11月14日 16:02:45 | christian.heimes | link | issue28689 messages |
| 2016年11月14日 16:02:45 | christian.heimes | create | |