On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 01:09 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > If an application *knows* that it will never use PKCS#11 after a fork(), > > as in this case where we *know* that we're always just going to exec > > something else, it certainly doesn't *damage* the well-behaved providers > > if we simply refrain from making that C_Initialize() call that we *know* > > to be gratuitous in the child. > > once again you are wrong and assuming your specific case if valid.
Can you explain where I'm wrong? If there is a specific case in which we *know* that all we're ever going to do after a fork() is exec something else, so *everything* is going to be thrown away... ... and if we *know* that calling C_Initialize() in the child, which we know is gratuitous in our case, is actually causing problems in some fairly common PKCS#11 provider modules... ... and if we *know* that these bugs have actually been fixed before and they keep recurring... ... and if we *know* that even if we fix the bugs again, people will still be using the existing buggy versions for some time... ... why in $DEITY's name would we not want to — in accordance with Postel's Law — *avoid* the gratuitous call to C_Initialize() which is triggering the issue? -- dwmw2
