Re: BIO_do_accept() + fork() is leaking 64B?

2011-03-31 Thread Michal Stawinski
an that father process sooner or later runs out of file > descriptors? > > Shouldn't the father process close(2) and the child - after finishing > the connection - shutdown(2)? Hmmm... Good one. Have not thought about it. I'll give it a look sometime,

Re: BIO_do_accept() + fork() is leaking 64B?

2011-03-26 Thread Michal Stawinski
On 26 March 2011 03:10, Dr. Stephen Henson wrote: > Just to add that technically it should be: > > BIO_set_close(bio, BIO_NOCLOSE); > > BIO_NOCLOSE just happens to be zero. > > Steve. Yup, I got it from manual. It does the job perfectly- thx. -- Mic

Re: BIO_do_accept() + fork() is leaking 64B?

2011-03-25 Thread Michal Stawinski
this one some time ago. When my problems started, It was giving me a strange itch in a head, wanting to get out, but sadly it did not occur to me. Thanks! -- Michal Stawinski (nazgee) __ OpenSSL Project

Re: BIO_do_accept() + fork() is leaking 64B?

2011-03-25 Thread Michal Stawinski
can give me a rationale for such a BIO design, or (even better) tell me I am a stupid bastard, and all I want can be done using some other, clean and neat solution. -- Michal Stawinski (nazgee) __ OpenSSL Project