Re: bug in PKCS7_free ?

2005-07-28 Thread Nils Larsch
Tan Eng Ten wrote: This is another example of the problem I highlighted a few days ago. You need to be very careful with which getter methods return a new instance (or inc the ref count), and which ones do not. Definitely not a bug but a matter of consistency. it's certainly a bug but it

Re: bug in PKCS7_free ?

2005-07-28 Thread Dr. Stephen Henson
On Thu, Jul 28, 2005, Nils Larsch wrote: Tan Eng Ten wrote: This is another example of the problem I highlighted a few days ago. You need to be very careful with which getter methods return a new instance (or inc the ref count), and which ones do not. Definitely not a bug but a matter of

bug in PKCS7_free ?

2005-07-27 Thread Alexandre Belloni
Hi, I'm trying to build a PKCS7 envelopped data (encrypted) but when I'm done withe the PKCS7 structure and I try to free it (calling PKCS7_free) I keep getting an access violation accessing 0xfeeefef6. I'm using openssl 0.9.8 under windows XP (win32). Code is attached. -- Alexandre

Re: bug in PKCS7_free ?

2005-07-27 Thread Dr. Stephen Henson
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005, Alexandre Belloni wrote: Hi, I'm trying to build a PKCS7 envelopped data (encrypted) but when I'm done withe the PKCS7 structure and I try to free it (calling PKCS7_free) I keep getting an access violation accessing 0xfeeefef6. I'm using openssl 0.9.8 under

Re: bug in PKCS7_free ?

2005-07-27 Thread Alexandre Belloni
Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: Any reason you can't use PKCS7_encrypt() instead? Unfortunately, I got the same result using PKCS7_encrypt(). -- Alexandre Belloni __ OpenSSL Project

Re: bug in PKCS7_free ?

2005-07-27 Thread Nils Larsch
Alexandre Belloni wrote: Hi, I'm trying to build a PKCS7 envelopped data (encrypted) but when I'm done withe the PKCS7 structure and I try to free it (calling PKCS7_free) I keep getting an access violation accessing 0xfeeefef6. I'm using openssl 0.9.8 under windows XP (win32). Code is

Re: bug in PKCS7_free ?

2005-07-27 Thread Tan Eng Ten
This is another example of the problem I highlighted a few days ago. You need to be very careful with which getter methods return a new instance (or inc the ref count), and which ones do not. Definitely not a bug but a matter of consistency. Nils Larsch wrote: Alexandre Belloni wrote: Hi,