From: Rich Salz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

rsalz> > It's probably OK to create, say,
rsalz> > 10000 of the former without ay problem, the latter would create
rsalz> > problems in those quantities:
rsalz> 
rsalz> 10,000 locks?  That concerns me.

I did exagerate a bit, but I see the possibility in big-scale SSL
proxies and stuff...

rsalz> Can you explain your proposed approach?  I don't recall.

Easy.  As it is right now, we have a small and finite number of locks,
one for each OpenSSL type (RSA, X509, ...) where we've found a need to
do some locking.  Those will of course be used in a threaded environment.

With type-level locking, any time some specific lock is activated for
some kind of operation, you lock out all operations that need a lock
on any instance of the same type, even if the instances have nothing
to do with each other and therefore should not lock each others out.

rsalz> Off the top of my head, if things are (properly) on the stack,
rsalz> then the only places that should need locks are global tables,
rsalz> no?

You forget about threads sharing some objects on the heap.  There was
a patch a few days ago about locking a little more around some RSA
operations...

-- 
Richard Levitte   \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chairman@Stacken   \ S-168 35  BROMMA  \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
Redakteur@Stacken   \      SWEDEN       \ or +46-709-50 36 10
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis                -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
Software Engineer, Celo Communications: http://www.celocom.com/

Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400.
See <http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/> for more info.

______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project                                 http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List                       [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to