I've said it before, but my problem sounds very similar to yours.  In my 
system, it's not even possible for two threads to be accessing SSL at the
same time, yet still it appears that a given ssl session will get confused, 
perhaps like you say it gets signals crossed with another session.  Its 
only when negotiating many SSL_accepts() at once - say, 100 at a rate of 20 
a second.  Some small percentage never finish because they're always 
waiting for data, or so they say, as they don't seem to take the data 
available on their own socket.  Yet some of these sessions will 
mysteriously finish sometime later, despite the fact that no new data has 
come in on their sockets...

If I find a solution (or the real problem), I will certainly post it in 
case it helps you with your problem - I'd be curious if you find anything too.

Thanks,
Q


At 09:45 AM 1/24/2001 -03-30, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>There seems to be data shared between different SSL structures. Can anyone
>verify this? I know that session caching is shared data but I was
>wondering what else. My multithreaded app seems to have difficulty when
>one thread is doing an SSL_accept and another thread doing an SSL_read on
>different SSL structures. One appears to be receiving messages intended
>for the other. Is this possible?
>
>Take care,
>Cory
>
>--
>Cory Winter                          E-Mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Software Developer                   WWW: http://www.ooc.com/
>Object Oriented Concepts, Inc.       Phone: (709) 738-3725
>______________________________________________________________________
>OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
>User Support Mailing List                    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List                    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to