Re: [PATCH] speed.c speed test with EC:0.9.8

2005-03-20 Thread Nils Larsch
Jean- Luc Duval wrote:
sorry if this is duplicate but seems to have not pass the first time
 
A 192 key length seems to have been added for EC P type of key, this 
broke the for loop of iteration count. removing the 192 bits key or the 
following patch works(the sample count is possibly not very big )
 
OpenSSL 0.9.8-dev XX xxx 
built on: Thu Mar 10 01:47:18 2005
platform: VC-WIN32
 
--- apps\speed.c.ori2005-03-11 19:55:46.640625000 -0500
+++ apps\speed.c2005-03-11 20:07:09.75000 -0500
thanks. Please test a new snapshot.
Cheers,
Nils
__
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List   openssl-dev@openssl.org
Automated List Manager   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


RAND_poll() crashes on Windows (thread-safety issue)

2005-03-20 Thread Steven Reddie



Hi 
All,

As you are aware, 
RAND_poll() is not thread safe and must be called with only a single active 
thread in the process. The section in whichI have experienced 
crashesis the heap walking. The entire section is protected by a 
mutex, but the issueseems to bethat the snapshot references 
structures in memory that get changed by other threads (perhaps as threads are 
created and destroyed) while the snapshot is being traversed. The crash is 
usually a bad memory reference because a heap item no longer 
exists.

We've discussed this 
before, and the "solution" has been to call RAND_poll before creating additional 
threads. This isn't a satisfactory solution since in this world of complex 
applications that dynamically load DLLs which in turn load other DLLs it is 
often the case that an application has multiple threads before OpenSSL has been 
loaded and therefore before it is even possible to call 
RAND_poll.

We have workarounds 
for this, such as calling RAND_add with enough data so that RAND_poll wont be 
called, but a fix inside OpenSSL itself would stop the crashes that people 
onopenssl-users experiencefrom time to time. Are there any 
plans to address this, or any thoughts on the best approach to resolve this 
once, and for all?

Regards,

Steven