> On 24 Nov 2022, at 14:13, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> On 24/11/2022 14:03, Edwin Torok wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 Nov 2022, at 13:43, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/11/2022 09:03, Edwin Torok wrote:
>> Perhaps a compromise between the 2 extremes would be for xenopsd to open and
>> have its own
On 24/11/2022 14:03, Edwin Torok wrote:
>
>> On 24 Nov 2022, at 13:43, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>
>> On 24/11/2022 09:03, Edwin Torok wrote:
On 23 Nov 2022, at 22:25, Andrew Cooper wrote:
The binding for xc_interface_close() free the underlying handle while
leaving
the
> On 24 Nov 2022, at 13:43, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> On 24/11/2022 09:03, Edwin Torok wrote:
>>> On 23 Nov 2022, at 22:25, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> The binding for xc_interface_close() free the underlying handle while
>>> leaving
>>> the Ocaml object still in scope and usable. This
On 24/11/2022 09:03, Edwin Torok wrote:
>> On 23 Nov 2022, at 22:25, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>
>> The binding for xc_interface_close() free the underlying handle while leaving
>> the Ocaml object still in scope and usable. This would make it easy to
>> suffer
>> a use-after-free, if it weren't
> On 23 Nov 2022, at 22:25, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> The binding for xc_interface_close() free the underlying handle while leaving
> the Ocaml object still in scope and usable. This would make it easy to suffer
> a use-after-free, if it weren't for the fact that the typical usage is as a
>
The binding for xc_interface_close() free the underlying handle while leaving
the Ocaml object still in scope and usable. This would make it easy to suffer
a use-after-free, if it weren't for the fact that the typical usage is as a
singleton that lives for the lifetime of the program.
Ocaml 5 no
