In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:49:02
-0500, Geoff Thorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
geoff> Is this one of those performance-critical cases were you should run a
geoff> test outside the lock first? Ie.
geoff>
geoff>if (init_ciphers)
geoff>{
geoff>CRYPTO_w
The patch was confirmed today, and thereby committed. This ticket is now resolved.
--
Richard Levitte
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMA
* Louis Solomon [SteelBytes] via RT ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> yea, I think that patch should be ok.
> > + CRYPTO_w_lock(CRYPTO_LOCK_SSL);
> > if (init_ciphers) load_ciphers();
> > + CRYPTO_w_unlock(CRYPTO_LOCK_SSL);
Is this one of those performance-critical cases were you should run a
tes
e: [openssl.org #373] Fw: is SSL_CTX_new() thread safe (on win32)
?
>
> I can see that happening. Would the following patch help?
>
> Index: ssl/ssl_ciph.c
> ===
> RCS file: /e/openssl/cvs/openssl/ssl/ssl_ciph.c
I can see that happening. Would the following patch help?
Index: ssl/ssl_ciph.c
===
RCS file: /e/openssl/cvs/openssl/ssl/ssl_ciph.c,v
retrieving revision 1.33.2.3
diff -u -u -r1.33.2.3 ssl_ciph.c
--- ssl/ssl_ciph.c 19 Jul 2002
I can see that happening. Would the following patch help?
Index: ssl/ssl_ciph.c
===
RCS file: /e/openssl/cvs/openssl/ssl/ssl_ciph.c,v
retrieving revision 1.33.2.3
diff -u -u -r1.33.2.3 ssl_ciph.c
--- ssl/ssl_ciph.c 19 Jul 2002 1
submiting as a bug (read the whole email ...)
Louis Solomon
www.SteelBytes.com
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Solomon [SteelBytes]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2002 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: is SSL_CTX_new() thread safe (on win32) ?
> ok,
