* Andres Freund (and...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > On 2013-09-13 13:15:34 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > Good thought. Got sucked into a meeting but once I'm out I'll try having > > the lock/unlock routines abort if they're called while ssl_open_connections > > is zero, which should not be happening, but seems like it is. > > Hm. close_SSL() first does pqsecure_destroy() which will unset the > callbacks, and the count and then goes on to do X509_free() and > ENGINE_finish(), ENGINE_free() if either is used. > > It's not implausible that one of those actually needs locking. I doubt > engines play a role here, but, without having looked at the testcase, > X509_free() might be a possibility.
Unfortunately, while I can still easily get the deadlock to happen when the hooks are reset, the hooks don't appear to ever get called when ssl_open_connections is set to zero. You have a good point about the additional SSL calls after the hooks are unloaded though, I wonder if holding the ssl_config_mutex lock over all of close_SSL might be more sensible.. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature