[Net-ssleay-devel] Net-SSLeay-1.33_01 X509_get_subjectAltNames segfaults on test.eonis.net:443

[Florian Ragwitz]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 08:50:41PM +1000, Mike McCauley wrote:
> Hi Florian,
> 
> On Wednesday 20 February 2008 20:42, Florian Ragwitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 06:39:15PM +1000, Mike McCauley wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 20 February 2008 16:41, Steffen Ullrich wrote:
> > > > It looks like that I did not make clear that I already send the bug
> > > > report to Florian Ragwitz and that he is on it.
> > > > Sorry for the duplicate bug report.
> > >
> > > OK, well, I have checked in a fix now.
> > > I hope FR is not working on it too. Florian?
> >
> > Actually I was. Sorry for not pushing my changes.
> >
> > Your fix looks good to me, although I'd just return an SvIV for the
> > X509_NAME structure for GEN_DIRNAME just like other parts of the api do.
> 
> Im not sure what you mean. If tis a DIRNAME, then there is an interesting 
> string. The bug reporters sample certificate had such an interesting DIRNAME 
> string.

I was saying that maybe we shouldn't call X059_NAME_oneline to format
that X509_NAME but leave it for the users of the api to do as we already
do in other parts of it where we return X509_NAME structures and
provide X509_NAME_oneline and other functions for formatting it.

>  
> > I'm not totally sure about GEN_OTHERNAME. Are you sure the utf8 string
> > is everything one could be interested in?
> 
> Not really. I was just copying some other code. What are you thinking of?

I have no idea. I didn't have the guts to check what that structure
actually contains.


Another question I have is why you used the elements of the GENERAL_NAME
structure that are marked as "old" in the header file. There also are
other elements in the d union for every GEN_ constant. Do they provide
other information than the "old" fields? Do we want to use the old ones
to be more compatible with old openssls? Shall we check if the new
fields are there and use the old ones if they aren't?


-Flo

-- 
BOFH excuse #388:
Bad user karma.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/net-ssleay-devel/attachments/20080220/26f90f01/attachment.pgp