> On Sept. 23, 2016, 1:31 a.m., Joris Van Remoortere wrote:
> > Why this solution as opposed to ensuring we initialize at the beginning of 
> > processes like we do with `process::initialize()`?
> 
> Benjamin Bannier wrote:
>     Fixing the code in this spot is slightly easier as `openssl::initialize` 
> would
>     need to be called from a number of sites. Having it being called as part 
> of
>     `process::initialize` would be a viable option, but would make testing 
> slightly
>     harder.

I filed https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6328 to make openssl 
initialization eager.


- Benjamin


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/52154/#review150098
-----------------------------------------------------------


On Sept. 26, 2016, 6:16 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/52154/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Sept. 26, 2016, 6:16 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and Till Toenshoff.
> 
> 
> Bugs: MESOS-6216
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MESOS-6216
> 
> 
> Repository: mesos
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> This code modified the process environment in order to support upgrading
> on the fly from old-style libprocess SSL variables `SSL_` to
> `LIBPROCESS_SSL_`. Modifying the process environment at this point is
> not safe as other actors might concurrently read out that same
> environment.
> 
> Instead avoid changing the process environment altogether since flags
> can just as well be read from a map.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   3rdparty/libprocess/src/openssl.cpp 
> c09cdc89509e4e4ca4c8a0f4fb0a57156a3a6091 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/52154/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tested on various platforms in internal CI.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Benjamin Bannier
> 
>

Reply via email to