httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Brad Nicholes" <BNICHO...@novell.com>
Subject Re: Patch for 2.0.54 + OpenSSL 0.9.8
Date Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:10:33 GMT
I think that there are a few more changes that need to be made.  At least on NetWare it won't
compile without the following additional patch.

Brad

Index: ssl_scache_shmcb.c
===================================================================
--- ssl_scache_shmcb.c	(revision 201624)
+++ ssl_scache_shmcb.c	(working copy)
@@ -1184,7 +1184,7 @@
     SHMCBHeader *header;
     SSL_SESSION *pSession = NULL;
     unsigned int curr_pos, loop, count;
-    unsigned char *ptr;
+    const unsigned char *ptr;
     time_t now;
 
     ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_DEBUG, 0, s,
@@ -1262,7 +1262,7 @@
     SHMCBIndex *idx;
     SHMCBHeader *header;
     unsigned int curr_pos, loop, count;
-    unsigned char *ptr;
+    const unsigned char *ptr;
     BOOL to_return = FALSE;
 
     ap_log_error(APLOG_MARK, APLOG_DEBUG, 0, s,
Index: ssl_scache_dbm.c
===================================================================
--- ssl_scache_dbm.c	(revision 201624)
+++ ssl_scache_dbm.c	(working copy)
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@
     }
 
     /* unstreamed SSL_SESSION */
-    sess = d2i_SSL_SESSION(NULL, &ucpData, nData);
+    sess = d2i_SSL_SESSION(NULL, (const UCHAR**)&ucpData, nData);
 
     return sess;
 }


>>> wrowe@rowe-clan.net Wednesday, July 06, 2005 10:49:46 AM >>>
At 11:19 AM 7/6/2005, Paul Querna wrote:
>William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>>At 07:32 AM 7/5/2005, Georg v. Zezschwitz wrote:
>>
>>>However, currently 2.0.54 cannot be built with 0.9.8beta6, as
>>>a pem.h-definition has changed. The OpenSSL-team considers this
>>>renaming as a bug correction, so compilation of mod_ssl will
>>>go on to fail.
>>
>>I've committed that fix to both 2.0 and 2.1 trees, thank you!
>>In the future please separate each functional change into its 
>>own patch.
>
>Whoa there.  This should not of been committed to the 2.0 tree 
>directly.  There was no vote.  I didn't see anyone else even give 
>it a +1 on the mailing list.
>
>That said, it is a simple change, and I will give it a +1, but 
>pleeeeease don't do that, 2.0.x is under RTC.

Fair enough :)  But I would not proceed to the 2.0 GA without this
passing muster.  That's two, so can Paul and I get another +1?

Patch follows.  Votes/Comments?

Bill

--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/modules/ssl/ssl_toolkit_compat.h (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.0.x/modules/ssl/ssl_toolkit_compat.h Wed Jul  6 08:10:36 2005
@@ -99,6 +99,13 @@
 #define HAVE_SSL_X509V3_EXT_d2i
 #endif
 
+#ifndef PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK
+#ifdef PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK
+/* In OpenSSL 0.9.8 PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK was renamed */
+#define PEM_F_DEF_CALLBACK PEM_F_PEM_DEF_CALLBACK 
+#endif
+#endif
+
 #elif defined (SSLC_VERSION_NUMBER) /* RSA */
 
 /* sslc does not support this function, OpenSSL has since 9.5.1 */




Mime
View raw message