On 20/08/2014 9:27 a.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 06/15/2014 05:00 AM, Tsantilas Christos wrote: >> On 06/13/2014 10:46 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: >>> On 04/25/2014 01:46 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: >>>> On 25/04/2014 12:56 p.m., Alex Rousskov wrote: >>>>> Do not leak fake SSL certificate context cache when reconfigure >>>>> changes port addresses. > >>>> This requires the guarantee that all connections using the storage are >>>> closed right? > > >>> Hi Christos, >>> >>> My understanding is that deleting a cached LocalContextStorage object >>> does not actually affect connections that use the corresponding SSL_CTX >>> and certificate because any SSL object using those things increments >>> their sharing counter and deleting LocalContextStorage only decrements >>> that counter. The [cached] SSL_CTX object is not destroyed by >>> SSL_CTX_free until that sharing counter reaches zero. Is my >>> understanding flawed? > > >> This is true. The SSL_CTX objects are not destroyed. > > > >>> Do we have any code that stores SSL_CTX pointers for asyncrhonous use >>> (i.e., across many main loop iterations) but does not increment the >>> sharing counter? > > >> Nope. >> I hope I am not loosing anything. In any case if such case found it >> should be considered as bug, and must fixed... > > > Hi Amos, > > Does the above exchange resolve your concerns regarding that 6/8 > leak patch? I have re-attached the same patch here for your convenience.
It does, yes. +1. Amos > > > Thank you, > > Alex. > >
