[openssl-dev] OS X 10.8, x86_64: 01-test_abort.t... sh: line 1: 71522 Abort trap: 6

Jeffrey Walton noloader at gmail.com
Sat Mar 19 23:41:28 UTC 2016

On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Richard Levitte <levitte at openssl.org> wrote:
> In message <rt-4.0.19-1915-1458428897-111.4451-6-0 at openssl.org> on Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:08:17 +0000, "noloader at gmail.com via RT" <rt at openssl.org> said:
> rt> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Richard Levitte via RT <rt at openssl.org> wrote:
> rt> > I think that's a discussion that deserves its own new thread on openssl-dev.
> rt> >
> rt> > A RT ticket is *not* the right place for a philosophical discussion. Closing
> rt> > this. Please don't respond on this message, create a new thread instead.
> rt>
> rt> Thanks Richard.
> rt>
> rt> For me, its not open for debate. Its a point of data egress, so it
> rt> must not occur. What others do is there business.
> rt>
> rt> I'll configure without the "data loss" feature, and others can do what
> rt> they want :)
> Well, how about you go after the calls then.  Complaining about the
> existence of OPENSSL_die or OPENSSL_assert is about as fruitful as
> complaining about the existence of abort() or assert()...  That's how
> this "philosophical discussion" started out that that's your
> complaint, isn't it?  If not, I'd like you to clarify.

Allowing a library to make policy decisions for the application is a
philosophical debate.

Allowing data to egress from the security boundary violates security
policies, and its not philosophical.


More information about the openssl-dev mailing list