Ken Raeburn wrote: > We've run into other cases where a krb5_context is needed but other > APIs make it difficult for one to be made available. So there's code > out there that allocates many short-lived krb5_context structures, > often without using them for actual network stuff.
OK, thinking back, I can see how it might be difficult to keep a krb5_context around in certain situations. However, although I said the change I proposed would move the "memory leak to krb5_init_context", this wasn't totally accurate. Basically, the memory leak would still occur from the same place in the code (in the DNS SRV lookup code apparently), but it would occur AT MOST once per krb5_context. Res_ninit() still gets called in exactly the same spot, it just uses a PER krb5_context res_state structure. Then, res_ninit() apparently will deallocate the structure, before initializing it again. If this change was made, short-lived krb5_context structures that do DNS SRV lookups (I think this is where res_ninit is called), would still leak, just not as much. Short-lived krb5_context structures that didn't need to do any DNS stuff wouldn't leak. Basically, the situation would improve for many important cases, and there isn't a scenario that I can think of, where the memory leak would get worse. Brian ________________________________________________ Kerberos mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
