>> Since he's talking about a process that forks, there >> shouldn't be a problem. >> He just needs to create a shared mapping in the parent. After >> the 'fork', the address will still be the same. > >However if the program forks and calls exec* then this issue could >arise. The title of the thread suggests this ;-) > >Cheers, >Mark
Yeh, you are quite right Mark as when this thread started, I was considering fork()/exec() scenario. Later the discussion over several other approaches to the problem were discussed and an attempt to solve the problem by getting rid of exec() was under consideration. As far as the application that I am working on is concerned, it already has a mechanism in place to map the shared memory at exactly the same address in all the related processes. So no issue withe the address there. Of course, it will be great to have a feature in OpenSSL implementation iteslf that will enable SSL session handover / or even session sharing between multiple related processes. But I am not quite sure if this would involve any security hazards like session hijacking, that would in fact defete the purpose of SSL (which is to provide security). ~ Urjit DISCLAIMER ========== This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information which is the property of Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd. It is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, retain, copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this message. Persistent Systems Pvt. Ltd. does not accept any liability for virus infected mails. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List openssl-users@openssl.org Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
