>> I did have a question though. Is there any reason to define the >> dynamic thread locking functions? There is a note stating: >> "Also, dynamic locks are currently not used internally by OpenSSL, >> but may do so in the future." >> Is this still accurate? If OpenSSL does start to use them internally, >> will the 'old-style' still be sufficient (but maybe just not optimal), >> or will there be undefined behavior? >> > > It is a very good idea to define them. > > Currently only the Chil ENGINE makes uses of these. If they aren't defined it > wont work. > > In future other functionality may either not be available or at least work in > a sub optimal way if they aren't defined.
One thing that wasn't clear in the documentation.... I have been sharing an SSL_CTX across threads, rather than creating a CTX on a per-thread basis. I am getting crashes on this, but making the CTX per-thread appears to correct the situation. I understand that because of session-caching it may need to write to the CTX, but I would have hoped there'd be some sort of locking mechanism there since you'd probably want to resume a session from any thread (and have that association with the same CTX). Seems like a perfect place for dynamic locking functions... -Brad ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
