"Bruce (Riji) Cai" <bcai-zm9q81nvl4ufkj6hysv...@public.gmane.org> writes:
> Not quite sure, but to my understand, the "ex_data" is saved into per > ssl connection context, so the index to it should be per connection > scope. That's not correct, no. The ex_data mechanism can be used to store many different things into each SSL connection (similarly for other structures). Each such kind of thing can get its own index using SSL_get_ex_new_index, and so each can work independently on the same connection without interference. SSL_get_ex_new_index is giving an index for all SSL objects, not any specific one---it's a global operation. > While from my observation, the returned index is increased when > SSL_get_ex_new_index is called once, no matter called by A connection > or B connection. > > In some case, I have only one private data, and I don't want to pass > the index var to every piece of code, So use a global of some sort (file static or whatever). I don't see the problem. > so can I just save the ex_data directly to index 0 and get it out from > 0 when needed? You can, and maybe it'll be OK, but you risk conflicts if something else in your application also wants to use the ex_data mechanism on SSLs. Using SSL_get_ex_new_index correctly removes that possible problem (presuming the other code is also using it correctly, of course). [...] ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager majord...@openssl.org
