In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 11 Dec 2002
08:24:47 +0000, Bertie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
bertie> In view of the fact that the chil engine code is only
bertie> threadsafe if the dynlock callbacks are implemented, and that
bertie> it is unlikely that openssl application developers will get
bertie> round to providing these solely for the benefit of the chil
bertie> engine would it be please be possible (I'm begging) to apply
bertie> the part of the patch (#381) I supplied which allows the chil
bertie> engine to use one static lock if dynlocks are not supported by
bertie> the app. This patch could be reversed (in 0.9.8 ?) when it is
bertie> clear to multithreaded app developers that they need to supply
bertie> dynlock upcalls for threadsafety.
Uhmm, I think I provided a different solution: if the chil engine
detects that the application provided callbacks for static locks bur
not for dynamic ones, it will refuse to load. Did you test that? As
for now, I think that's the best I can provide (but I can promise to
have another round at this in my brain).
You know, if certain (easy) fixes are needed, there will most probably
be a 0.9.7a...
--
Richard Levitte \ Spannv�gen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47
\ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44
Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/
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]
