Create the OID at your program startup and store the NID in a global variable.
From: Yun Jiang <yun.ji...@realvnc.com> Reply-To: openssl-dev <email@example.com> Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 7:38 AM To: openssl-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] About multi-thread unsafe for APIs defined in crypto/objects/obj_dat.c Thanks! The problem is that I need to get a customized certificate extension based on an OID. Until now, I cannot find a solution without dynamically calling OBJ_create(OID, NULL. NULL). Yun From: openssl-dev [mailto:openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Peter Waltenberg Sent: 24 January 2018 01:23 To: Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com>; email@example.com Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] About multi-thread unsafe for APIs defined in crypto/objects/obj_dat.c It's also not that much of a problem in practice.. If you are using those API's you are adding new crypto. methods. Doing that after threading has started is not going to give good results with or without locking. Peter From: "Salz, Rich via openssl-dev" <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> To: "firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>" <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> Date: 24/01/2018 11:19 Subject: Re: [openssl-dev] About multi-thread unsafe for APIs defined in crypto/objects/obj_dat.c Sent by: "openssl-dev" <openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org<mailto:openssl-dev-boun...@openssl.org>> ________________________________ * OpenSSL APIs, which makes the following OpenSSL documentation statement invalid (https://www.openssl.org/docs/man1.0.2/crypto/threads.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.openssl.org_docs_man1.0.2_crypto_threads.html&d=DwMFAw&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=4LM0GbR0h9Fvx86FtsKI-w&m=ZS_kRxGa4vj0O6wqfY-6q7kwVT0WiIMkFqw1XWHym4o&s=GK3QtuXP-8j_1nbRihxeJGLAIYXt1BNIyh3WHP6EJlY&e=>) * "OpenSSL can safely be used in multi-threaded applications provided that at least two callback functions are set, locking_function and threadid_func." * Is there any planning to fix this issue? Well, the most likely fix is to make the “safely” wording be more vague, which I doubt you’ll like. But I doubt anyone on the team has much interest in fixing 1.0.2 locking issues.-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mta.openssl.org_mailman_listinfo_openssl-2Ddev&d=DwICAg&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=K53ZTnW2gq2IjM1tbpz7kYoHgvTfJ_aR8s4bK_o2xzY&m=xEO93f-eFk98ZtSS2VW5oQoqCSoxBFAun8n0dZayTrs&s=9NZPKi5lqIGH6Jq4RqlHOiKqzuqUqZQMEQvpBr3aKsw&e=
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev