On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 10:34:52PM +0200, Bodo Moeller wrote:
[...]
>> would be written like this...
>>
>> CRYPTO_w_lock(CRYPTO_LOCK_RAND);
>>
>> locking_thread = CRYPTO_thread_id();
>> crypto_lock_rand = 1;
> This was also my guess when reading your above problem description.
> Hopefully this is a sign that this time it is really correct.
>
> Actually it can not be correct if access to 'unsigned long' values is
> not atomic. If I decide to be that pedantic (and I start to feel I
> should), I have to introduce an additional lock for protecting access
> to 'locking_thread'. This does not add significant overhead as
> this is only needed on the few occasions when 'crypto_lock_rand' is
> set.
That last sentence is wrong: It is correct as far as *reading*
'locking_thread' is concerned, but much more often that variable has
to be *written*. Oh well.
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
