On 1/2/2018 19:36, Dave Coombs wrote: >> The observation is correct, but the conclusion is wrong. >> The object is reference counted, and X509_free() is needed >> to avoid a leak (when the store is freed along with the >> context). > My apologies -- I assumed based on its name that X509_OBJECT_up_ref_count was > upping the refcount on the internal X509_OBJECT, which had taken over the > X509*, which led to my conclusion that freeing the X509_STORE frees the X509 > too. However, you're right, it ups the refcount on the underlying X509, and > so the caller *should* free the underlying object when finished with it. > > I've now confirmed with a quick test program and valgrind. > > Oops, > -Dave Thanks.
-- Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net <mailto:k...@denninger.net> /The Market Ticker/ /[S/MIME encrypted email preferred]/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
