On 01/11/2017 11:27 AM, Richard Levitte wrote: > The branch master has been updated > via 66ed24b1624606593a23c9fe78d459718d26409c (commit) > via 78b19e90b4aade1ffdf8d918277910b01dac1d76 (commit) > via cc10f2275594eac2bcdaa218c1d6f672c2b891b7 (commit) > via 3ab3c8cb274aca1b5c0fbf83af96e49baf422708 (commit) > via 0fe1fc858a0519c3866c0d2e88513e677b674926 (commit) > via 18cfc668eae2c296e9bc90ffc989d9bbe61cc82f (commit) > via a223ffe6d35209c59ed498ee89d1bac6e82e2ac2 (commit) > via 264b2d92511572a247ecb673d61ff385deb9eb8d (commit) > from 5eeb6c6e562937dcfdd4b79619a699a118deadba (commit)
> +static int ui_method_data_index() > +{ > + static int idx = -1; > + > + if (idx == -1) > + idx = CRYPTO_get_ex_new_index(CRYPTO_EX_INDEX_UI_METHOD, > + 0, NULL, > + ui_new_method_data, > + ui_dup_method_data, > + ui_free_method_data); Should this have some synchronization around it to prevent concurrent checks in multiple threads? It looks like we use a lock for our internal stuff, but a run_once ought to be fine, too. -Ben
-- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev