On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 07:18:52AM +0200, Alex Hultman wrote:
> io_callback(events) {
> if (messages_to_send && (events & OS_WRITABLE)) {
> SSL_write(.);
> if (error) {
> if (error_is_want_read) {
> system_poll &= OS_READA
I did find a very good explanation here:
https://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/2015-March/000709.html
The idea of "what SSL wants" and "what the app wants" is a very good
explanation. This is the pseudocode I'm working with currently:
io_callback(events) {
if (messages_to_se
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:07:22AM +0200, Alex Hultman wrote:
> If SSL_write returns the error SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ, am I then allowed to
> call SSL_read before I have called SSL_write?
WANT_READ means that OpenSSL *internally* needs to read some (often
ciphertext) bytes from the peer, and that si
write - despite the fact that the error was thrown by
the opposite SSL_* function call?
Does an SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ have to be handled by the SSL_* function that
caused the error, or will any of the two (SSL_read, SSL_write) functions
handle this desire?
--
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubs
Hi,
I am trying to implement bufferization of data on a SSL connection
at the application layer. To do so I implemented a wrapper to SSL_write,
which fills a buffer rather than sending data directly to SSL_write.
When the buffer is full the data is flushed in a call to SSL_write, but
when t
.
Cheers!
-
John Lane Schultz
Spread Concepts LLC
Cell: 443 838 2200
On Dec 3, 2014, at 2:03 AM, John Lane Schultz
wrote:
I’ve read that when SSL_read / SSL_write returns a SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ /
SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE that when the required readable / writeable condition has
been met tha
I’ve read that when SSL_read / SSL_write returns a SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ /
SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE that when the required readable / writeable condition has
been met that the call to SSL_read / SSL_write must be made with EXACTLY the
same parameters as the previous call that returned the error.
Can
>From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org On Behalf Of Dogan Kurt
>Sent: Friday, 29 June, 2012 15:14
>Hi, i am developing a client app with openssl. I use SSL_read
>and SSL_write in blocking mode, i just cant figure out something
>about them, if server sends me 10 kb and i call SSL_read just
>once
Hi, i am developing a client app with openssl. I use SSL_read and SSL_write
in blocking mode, i just cant figure out something about them, if server
sends me 10 kb and i call SSL_read just once, can i assume that i will
receive all the data at once.
I use simple recv call with that classic approac
> From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org
> [mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of ikuzar
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 5:41 AM
> To: openssl-users@openssl.org
> Subject: Re: data size issue with SSL_read( ) / SSL_write
>
> Ryan, what is the suitable cipher
Any
>> review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any
>> action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than
>> the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
>> contact the sender and delete this mate
> the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please
> contact the sender and delete this material from any computer.
>
>
> *From:* owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org [mailto:
> owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org] *On Behalf Of *ikuzar
> *Sent:* Thursday, Mar
On 3/17/2011 7:43 AM, ikuzar wrote:
I am confused.
When I used a simple c++ program which uses SSL functions for the first
time, I need not implement a protocol. when I tell SSL_write( ) to send
5 bytes and tell SSL_read( ) to read 10 bytes, the last reads 5 bytes !
( doesn't it ? am I wrong ?
I am confused.
When I used a simple c++ program which uses SSL functions for the first
time, I need not implement a protocol. when I tell SSL_write( ) to send 5
bytes and tell SSL_read( ) to read 10 bytes, the last reads 5 bytes ! (
doesn't it ? am I wrong ? I assume SSL reads expect \0 then it st
On 3/17/2011 6:40 AM, ikuzar wrote:
Why do we expect \r\n ? why not \0 ?
That's why you need to implement a protocol.
DS
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List
Why do we expect \r\n ? why not \0 ?
2011/3/17
> Hi
>
> does your server send \r\n with hello?
>
> i read byte by byte until i found an \r\n
>
> Regards
> Luiz
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > In my programm, client send "HELLO" message to server.
> >
> > 1)
> >
> ---
Hi
does your server send \r\n with hello?
i read byte by byte until i found an \r\n
Regards
Luiz
> Hello,
>
> In my programm, client send "HELLO" message to server.
>
> 1)
> ---
> SSL_write is encapsulated in MY_sen
On 3/17/2011 5:00 AM, ikuzar wrote:
The problem :
when I print data, I have got :
HELLO��y0�y
0�y��y
i`�0�y
��� ���L���L��-M
etc...
instead of
HELLO.
in MYrecv, when I make L = 5, it works
what should I do to read just the right size so that when I print I get
HELLO, GOODBYE, etc .
Hello,
In my programm, client send "HELLO" message to server.
1)
---
SSL_write is encapsulated in MY_send( ) function like this :
MY_send(MY_cn sd, const char* data, size_t len) {
ret = SSL_write(socki->ssl, d
r there are any plans, but I doubt it. The reason
not to is that the library is not the right place to implement that kind
of logic.
(b) As far as I understand, the main problem with the parallel
SSL_read / SSL_write is renegotiation, i.e. a call to SSL_read can
lead to a send call and vice-versa,
, but couldn't find anything), If no, why not?
(b) As far as I understand, the main problem with the parallel
SSL_read / SSL_write is renegotiation, i.e. a call to SSL_read can
lead to a send call and vice-versa, so, if I ensure I don't do
renegotiation at all (both sides use my application
ations,
credential passing, session setup and teardown... which are, by far, the
most likely reason to get SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ/SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE...
the SSL layer needs another pass through select() / poll() with the
appropriate call being made to completely something happening in *its*
protocol la
Sebastian Treu:
> > If you set ALLOW_MOVING_WRITE_BUFFER, the restriction is relaxed. The
> > only
> > restriction that remains is that you must present a consistent data
> > stream.
> > For example, if you try to SSL_write "foo" and two bytes are sent,
> > your next
> > SSL_write *must* start wit
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Schwartz wrote:
> Sebastian Treu wrote:
>
>> Well, maybe I miss the point of what man pages wanted to say with:
>>
>> "[...]
>> WARNING
>> When an SSL_write() operation has to be repeated because of
>> SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ or SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE
Sebastian Treu wrote:
> Well, maybe I miss the point of what man pages wanted to say with:
>
> "[...]
> WARNING
>When an SSL_write() operation has to be repeated because of
>SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ or SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE, it must be repeated
> with
>the same arguments.
> [...
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Sebastián Treu
wrote:
> differents arguments. I also noted that SSL_write() is "clever" enough
> to send _any_ length, so segmented writes will be overriding that
> warning (if I undestood what man wanted to say). When I say clever
> enough, I meant that in what I
Hi David,
>> Others things are to instantaneously put that client in a wait list
>> when SSL_write() could not succed, continue with the others, and try
>> with that client again later. But, sometimes we can get a WANT_WRITE
>> or WANT_READ when renegotiating so this does not appears a solution.
Sebastian Treu:
> As David said in an older thread, I can think of the API as a state
> machine and then, regarding how much progress we get, do something.
> Considering this, I have some doubts about a communication between
> server and clients. Let's say we write a client that in his nature,
>
Hi,
I didn't want to start another thread about this two I/O functions.
For starters (like me) on this two I/O calls, things get a bit
confusing at the beggining. I used to read man pages and doc before
asking something that I don't know and gather information about it to
try to resolve the proble
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Rij wrote:
Hello everyone,
I need a deeper understanding of SSL_read()/SSL_write() and was
wondering if someone could please provide some insight.
As far as I understand, OpenSSL has is a record-oriented protocol.
Lets say the record size is 16K. Let's
> Hello everyone,
>
> I need a deeper understanding of SSL_read()/SSL_write() and was
> wondering if someone could please provide some insight.
>
> As far as I understand, OpenSSL has is a record-oriented protocol.
> Lets say the record size is 16K. Let's say a clie
Hello everyone,
I need a deeper understanding of SSL_read()/SSL_write() and was
wondering if someone could please provide some insight.
As far as I understand, OpenSSL has is a record-oriented protocol.
Lets say the record size is 16K. Let's say a client requests data of
size 40K and then
Luiz Rafael Culik Guimaraes wrote:
> How to use properly SSL_read/SSL_write with select?
Make sure to set the socket/BIO non-blocking. Call SSL_read or SSL_write
when you want to read or write plaintext to/from the SSL connection. *Only*
call 'select' on the underlying sock
Dear Friends
How to use properly SSL_read/SSL_write with select?
my default code with use standart api, make an call to select before call to
recv/send api
my code to read is like this
to Read i use
do
{
if( iPos == iAllocated - 1 )
{
iAllocated += iBufferSize
> > Because that's what HTTP version 1.0 says to do, and you asked
> > for HTTP 1.0
> > behavior. If it didn't, how would the client know when it got the entire
> > request?
> (You mean the entire response, and in particular response body
> aka entity.)
Right.
> Content-length is allowed in 1.0
> From: owner-openssl-users On Behalf Of David Schwartz
> Sent: Monday, 14 January, 2008 16:48
> > In fact, I'm not sure why apache closes connection even if I
> set KeepAlive
> > to On in httpd.conf.
>
> Because that's what HTTP version 1.0 says to do, and you asked
> for HTTP 1.0
> behavior.
> Hi
> Thanks for reply.
>
> In fact, I'm not sure why apache closes connection even if I set KeepAlive
> to On in httpd.conf.
Because that's what HTTP version 1.0 says to do, and you asked for HTTP 1.0
behavior. If it didn't, how would the client know when it got the entire
request?
> If I send
_
> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
> User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
> Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
View this message in context:
ht
_
> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
> User Support Mailing Listopenssl-users@openssl.org
> Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
View this message in context:
ht
> Hello!
>
> I use openssl to work with apache server via https.
> But I see a strange situation when the second and the third calls
> to send()
> in my test-case read 0 bytes from socket.
> Can you provide here any help?
Why is that surprising? That's exactly what I would expect to happen. When
openssl-users@openssl.org
> Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/SSL_read-reads-0-bytes-after-SSL_write-SSL_read-SSL_write-tp14737783p14797266.html
Sent from the OpenSSL - User mailing list arch
BIO_new_socket(sock, BIO_NOCLOSE);
SSL_set_bio(ssl, sbio, sbio);
err = SSL_connect(ssl);
send();
send();
send();
BIO_free_all(sbio);
ERR_print_errors_fp(stderr);
return 0;
}
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/SSL_read-reads-0-bytes-after-SSL_write-SSL_read-SSL_writ
Hello,
> I use openssl to work with apache server via https.
> But I see a strange situation when second and third calls to send() in
my test-case read
> 0 bytes from socket.
> Can you provide here any help?
You should not use names like "send" in your program.
send() is already defined system cal
Hello!
I use openssl to work with apache server via https.
But I see a strange situation when second and third calls to send() in
my test-case read 0 bytes from socket.
Can you provide here any help?
I use 'Fedora Core 7 x86' and openssl-0.9.8e.
Thanks!
-Dima
#include
#include
#include
#inclu
> But as per the behavior of the Edge triggered epoll,
> the epoll_wait will raise event only if it receives a data
> after putting this in the read event of epoll every time.
> Does this affect the behavior of SSL_read / SSL_write. If any
> one implements the server using epoll ET
triggered epoll, the epoll_wait will raise event only if it receives a
data after putting this in the read event of epoll every time. Does this
affect the behavior of SSL_read / SSL_write. If any one implements the
server using epoll ET can you please let me know that there is any special
case that
Hi
I'm using BIO in
async mode. When writing or reading data with SSL_write or SSL_read, in some
parts of the code, after receive some data
I use EVPs
functions. In some cases, due key problems, my EVP_DecryptFinalEx fails and
call
EVPerr(EVP_F_EVP_DECRYPTFINAL_EX,EVP_R_BAD_DECRYPT);
Th
> David
>
> can't understand
> ""Incorrect. The 'SSL_write' function is the function to send
> unencrypted data over the SSL link. It has nothing to do with the
> encrypted data the SSL engine wants to write to the socket.""
> When we do SSL_write the i/p is unencrypted data and this gets send
>
David
can't understand
""Incorrect. The 'SSL_write' function is the function to send
unencrypted data over the SSL link. It has nothing to do with the
encrypted data the SSL engine wants to write to the socket.""
When we do SSL_write the i/p is unencrypted data and this gets send
over the SSL l
> > If you get a 'select' hit, whether for readability or
> > writability, you
> >should retry *all* operations, whether reads or writes.
> > (Obviously, don't
> >call SSL_write unless you have some data to write!)
> > Again, I also recommend trying an SSL_read on any hit,
> > whether for
Original message
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:22:37 -0700
>From: "David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Wrapping SSL_read/SSL_write so they behave like
read/write.]
>To:
> You should 'select' for writability if and only if
> To answer my own question: No. Here is an amended version.
While I believe your code is okay, it can be improved in a few ways. It
contains some assumptions that are not always true, and it will work better
without those assumptions.
> > for(cp = connobjs; cp; cp = cp->next)
> >
Hello,
> >You may use select() but with some care.
> >Simplest way is to:
> > 1) wait on select()
> > 2) read hit from SSL descriptor occur
> > 3) read incrementally with SSL_read() from that descriptor until
> >WANT_READ
> > (or in other words - get all data from SSL read buffer)
> > 4) go to se
Original message
>Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +0200
>From: Marek Marcola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: Wrapping SSL_read/SSL_write so they behave like
read/write.]
>To: openssl-users@openssl.org
>You may use select() but with some care.
>Simplest
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 12:06:29PM -0400, Steven Young wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Marek Marcola wrote:
> > You may use select() but with some care.
> > Simplest way is to:
> > 1) wait on select()
> > 2) read hit from SSL descriptor occur
> > 3) read incrementally with SSL
On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 03:00:46PM +0200, Marek Marcola wrote:
> You may use select() but with some care.
> Simplest way is to:
> 1) wait on select()
> 2) read hit from SSL descriptor occur
> 3) read incrementally with SSL_read() from that descriptor until
> WANT_READ
>(or in other words - g
Do something like this for a SSL_read() and something very similar for
SSL_write() and SSL_shutdown(), etc. (I'm assuming non-blocking sockets):
-
totalbytesread=0;
stop='n';
unsigned
Hello,
> Pardon me, I think I'm a little thick today. I get what you're
> all saying but I'm still not 100% sure of how this should be applied.
> Here's the program flow, without SSL:
>
> while(!quit) {
> for(i in all file descriptors) {
> if(we have something buffered up to say to the s
Apologies if this is a duplicate; I was messing around with my e-mail
yesterday and it was broken for a while. I didn't see this go through.
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 06:54:36PM -0400, Joe Flowers wrote:
> It means call exactly the same SSL function you just did with the exact
> same paramete
> If you get SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE, even if you have no application data
> to send, the protocol itself requires data to be written
Correct.
> -- so you
> need to call SSL_write().
Incorrect. The 'SSL_write' function is the function to send unencrypted
data over the SSL link. I
> Encapsulated SSL data comes in records/packets. When you select()
> some descriptor for read, and select() gives you such hit you start
> reading data from SSL buffers. And now we may have some problems.
> If you will retry SSL_read() until you will get WANT_READ then
> you will get all data fro
Joe Flowers wrote:
It means the exactly same SSL function you just did with the exact
same parameters as you ust did that produced this SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE
return. Again, it's clearly explained in the docs.
Joe
Good grief. Pardon my grammar.
The sentence should have read:
It means call exa
I wouldn't advise that. Read the docs:
"When calling |SSL_write()| with num=0 bytes to be sent the behaviour is
undefined."
I still stand by me first reply on this thread, as I believe it follows
directly from the docs.
Read the docs on SSL_read() and SSL_write().
SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE does n
If you get SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE, even if you have no application data
to send, the protocol itself requires data to be written -- so you
need to call SSL_write(). If you get SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ, even if
you're writing application data, that means that the protocol itself
is requiring data to be r
Hello,
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 07:46:26PM +0200, Marek Marcola wrote:
> > I've forget to pay your attention on other problem that may appear
> > with code like:
> >
> > do {
> > ret = SSL_read(sslobject, buf, bufsz);
> > err = SSL_get_error(sslobject, ret);
> > } while (ret <= 0 && (
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 07:46:26PM +0200, Marek Marcola wrote:
> I've forget to pay your attention on other problem that may appear
> with code like:
>
> do {
> ret = SSL_read(sslobject, buf, bufsz);
> err = SSL_get_error(sslobject, ret);
> } while (ret <= 0 && (err == SSL_ERROR_WANT_R
Hello
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:58:27PM +0200, Marek Marcola wrote:
> > In this situation calling SSL_read() next time is enough
> > (SSL layer will continue to write its own data and after this
> > read real data) but this SSL_read() should be performed
> > when socket descriptor is ready fo
> I'm a little unclear on how this should be implemented.. so if I call
> SSL_read, get -1 back, and err = SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ, do I just call
> SSL_read again?
No. That error is telling you that you need to wait until the socket is
(again) readable.
> Because that's what I've been doing
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:58:27PM +0200, Marek Marcola wrote:
> In this situation calling SSL_read() next time is enough
> (SSL layer will continue to write its own data and after this
> read real data) but this SSL_read() should be performed
> when socket descriptor is ready for write now.
Hello,
> > You should change loop ending condition - this loop should end
> > when SSL_ERROR_WANT_READ or SSL_ERROR_WANT_WRITE occur because
> > this errors may be returned on non-blocking sockets on SSL_read()
> > and on SSL_write(). On normal use this will happen mostly where
> > re-handshake is
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 05:44:35PM -0400, Steven Young wrote:
> You're right; I don't want blocking behaviour. The non-SSL part
> of the code solves this by select()ing on the readable file descriptors
> and only calling read() when there is something to be read.
To give you an idea of what's
On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:27:52PM +0200, Marek Marcola wrote:
> I'm not sure if this is good solution because this will give
> you semi-blocking behaviour (we are only in non-blocking wrapper
> and checking for read/write is done by select() in "upper" layer).
You're right; I don't want blockin
Hello,
> You need to put select(ready to read or write) inside each (BOTH
> SSL_read() and SSL_write()) of your while loops at the beginning, and
> then cycle on WANT_READ or WANT_WRITE for BOTH SSL_read() and
> SSL_write() loops.
>
> You're getting high utilization because you are not putting
Steve,
You need to put select(ready to read or write) inside each (BOTH
SSL_read() and SSL_write()) of your while loops at the beginning, and
then cycle on WANT_READ or WANT_WRITE for BOTH SSL_read() and
SSL_write() loops.
You're getting high utilization because you are not putting select
i
Hello,
I'm writing a program which can be compiled either with SSL support or
without. In order to limit the amount of #ifdef'ing I have to put
throughout the rest of my program, I'm trying to wrap SSL_read and
SSL_write so they can be treated like read/write on a regular socket.
This is
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Marek Marcola
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:06 PM
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Subject: RE: SSL_read/SSL_write from kernel
Hello,
> Thanks, but let me rephrase my question.
>
> There seems to be a requirement for us to pr
ck ciphers,
> we need
> to ensure the data segment within the sk_buff is a multiple of the
> block cipher
> length, otherwise, we need to do a buffer copy and maintain the
> remaining data
> in some kernel memory, prequeue it and append it to the next sk_buff..
>
> If openss
need
to ensure the data segment within the sk_buff is a multiple of the block
cipher
length, otherwise, we need to do a buffer copy and maintain the remaining
data
in some kernel memory, prequeue it and append it to the next
sk_buff..
If openssl does support SSL_read/SSL_write from kernel
ECTED] On Behalf Of Gayathri
SundarSent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 1:06 PMTo:
openssl-users@openssl.orgSubject: SSL_read/SSL_write from
kernel
Hi.,
Does openssl
as such provide support for packet processing
from
kernel..i.e what do I have to do to invoke SSL_read/write
from
kernel..has a
Title: intoto Stationery
Hi.,
Does openssl
as such provide support for packet processing
from
kernel..i.e what do I have to do to invoke SSL_read/write
from
kernel..has anyone attempted this before.
Thanks
--Gayathri
Hi.,
Does openssl as such provide support for packet processing
from kernel..i.e what do I have to do to invoke SSL_read/write
from kernel..has anyone attempted this before.
Thanks
--Gayathri
__
OpenSSL Project
Title: SSL_read & SSL_write and retry
Hi there,
I've been trying to figure out the correct way to use SSL_read and SSL_write with retry and auto retry mode, etc. I'm a little confused. I've got a program that uses blocking sockets, and select (I only use select to check
Eric Rescorla wrote,
> The man page says:
^^^
Huh? Which platform?
I'd be more impressed by POSIX chapter and verse, but even that's
irrelevant because all it might or might not tell us is that many
platforms aren't fully POSIX compliant.
> select() examines the I/O descriptor sets whose a
c Rescorla
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:36 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Socket hangs on SSL_read/SSL_write
"Bill @ Rebey.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a pair of programs that work fine (they can communicate with one
> another) in "clear&
"Bill @ Rebey.com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have a pair of programs that work fine (they can communicate with one
> another) in "clear" (non-SSL mode), but when I switch them to use SSL, the
> SSL_write hangs, as does the SSL_read on the other end. ( "select"ing for
> Read on the reader's
I have a pair of programs that work fine (they can communicate with one
another) in "clear" (non-SSL mode), but when I switch them to use SSL, the
SSL_write hangs, as does the SSL_read on the other end. ( "select"ing for
Read on the reader's handle doesn't even work - the "select" never trips).
> Can anyone look at them and tell me what's wrong
> with them? My SSL connections are working, but the reading is never able to
> detect when a peer has closed the other end of the connection.
>
>
> int sslsocket::getch(char& ch)
> {
> if(m_init)
> init();
>
> int ret = SSL_read(m_ssl,
87 matches
Mail list logo
