On 08/20/2014 01:09 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote: > 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.
Committed to trunk as r13537. Thank you, Alex.
