On 07/30/2018 03:27 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
The only time such "leaks" come into play is process exit and library
unload. My advice is to not unload the library and to accept the
fact that a small fixed amount of memory might not be deallocated
at exit. Typically, even "valgrind" will not
On 07/30/2018 02:34 PM, Salz, Rich via openssl-users wrote:
* So why not just have a rule "don't litter"
Have you looked at, say, the memleak testing we do?
Thanks for the two cents.
Of course I applaud the team's memleak testing! How could my post be
interpreted otherwise? I wasn't
On 07/30/2018 01:27 PM, Salz, Rich via openssl-users wrote:
> I never thought I'd see the day that someone would have to defend
not leaking memory in pivotal security code like openssl however
To be accurate, it was a couple of people saying that memory leaks *on
process exit* aren’t be a
On 07/30/2018 12:52 PM, Jordan Brown wrote:
Because a zero-leaks policy is a lot easier to manage than having to
make a judgement call on each leak whether or not it's important, and
having to filter out "unimportant" leaks when you're trying to find
out whether you've introduced any
For the same reason one doesn't wear a halloween costume to a technical
meeting, Comic Sans is looked down upon when used outside comics and
day-care centers. It is considered a snub to use it in non-trivial
settings.
Much as lifting up your middle finger has no inherent meaning per se,
but