I agree entirely that a reference counter is the way to go. However, the complexity is much higher, and *for my purposes* the solution that I described works adequately.
Thanks for doing a proper fix! Philip Richard Levitte via RT wrote: >It seems to me that adding a reference counter is a bit better. This >means that we need to have one extra function (and callback) to release >a pointer (and thereby decreas the reference count). > >I'm experimenting with that approach as I write, and I'm going to >release soon unless someone sees a problem with that approach. > >Your alternative will unfortunately mean that we'll get a large number >of reports telling us about the memory leak reported by valgrind and >whatnot. I'd prefer to stay away from there if possible. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Tue Aug 19 10:34:05 2003]: > > > >>I get a crash in the lhash code in Openssl 0.9.7a. The troublesome case >>is when it is called from err/err.c in a multithreaded environment. >> >>The root cause *may* be that the hash is destroyed by >>int_thread_del_item while (say) int_thread_get has a copy of the >>pointer. The locking does not seem to cover the gap between loading the >>pointer (int_thread_hash) and then using it. Rather the lock is taken >>out, the pointer loaded, the lock released. The lock is then re-acquired >>and then the pointer is used. This seems wrong. >> >>My simple-minded proposal to fix the problem is to delete the code in >>int_thread_del_item that deletes the hash when it becomes empty. Yes, >>this will result in some memory being reserved and not freed...... I >>also suspect that the same problem could arise with int_error_hash -- >>that pointer is returned by int_err_get() when no lock is being held. >> >>Advice? >> >>Philip >> >> > > > > -- Philip Gladstone 978-ZEN-TOAD (978-936-8623) Cisco Systems, Inc Boxboro, MA ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
