On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 08:49:59PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Simon Horman <ho...@verge.net.au> wrote: > > I'm quite happy to consider replacing openssl with GNUTLS. > > Although I don't know if it would solve the problem at hand > > nor how many bonus problems it might create. > > My past experience is that converting from OpenSSL to GNUTLS is not THAT > difficult, but maintaining a code base to support both via autoconf is quite > painful. But I haven't done anything as intense as you in this regard.
Hopefully GNUTLS could just replace OpenSSL. Having both available as a compile-time switch sounds painful. > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/functions/setsockopt.html > > The above URL documents how to use the SO_RCVTIMEO and SO_SNDTIMEO options of > setsockopt(). > > http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:rEDEp2tvku8J:article.gmane.org/gmane.network.gnutls.general/227+GNUTLS_E_AGAIN+timeout&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk > > The above URL states that the way to set timeouts on the GNUTLS handshake > (and > presumably other GNUTLS library calls) is to use setsockopt(). > > I expect that you can use setsockopt() with OpenSSL too. While it's pretty > stupid to not have a simple timeout parameter for a function call such as the > ones we are discussing, it would be totally stupid to have no way at all of > specifying a timeout other than SIGALRM. Thanks for the pointers, I'll poke and see if that works for the problem at hand. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
