RE: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl README mod_ssl.h ssl_engine _init.c ssl_util.c

["MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <ma...@hp.com>]

Yes.. APR_LOCKALL can be replaced by APR_INTRAPROCESS.. I've done that
change and also have introduced CRYPTO_dynamic locks.. I shall send that
patch soon..

Thanks
-Madhu

-----Original Message-----
From: Justin Erenkrantz
To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Sent: 8/23/01 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl README mod_ssl.h
ssl_engine_init.c ssl_util.c

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 04:08:04AM -0000, dougm@apache.org wrote:
>   +    *lock_cs = apr_palloc(p, CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS);
>   +    for (i = 0; i < CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS; i++)
>   +    {
>   +        lock_count[i]=0;
>   +        apr_lock_create(&(lock_cs[i]), APR_MUTEX, APR_LOCKALL,
>   +                                                mc->szMutexFile,
p);
>   +    }

I meant to review this patch, but I accidentally hit the delete key on 
the original message.  Anyway, that APR_LOCKALL can be APR_INTRAPROCESS.
We're only concerned about safety within our process not across 
multiple processes - there is no need to needlessly lock across
processes here.

IMHO, the call to ssl_util_thread_setup should be moved to 
ssl_init_Child and even potentially surrounded by 
#if APR_HAS_THREADS.  -- justin

Re: cvs commit: httpd-2.0/modules/ssl README mod_ssl.h ssl_engine _init.c ssl_util.c

[Justin Erenkrantz <je...@ebuilt.com>]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 10:34:29PM -0700, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
> Yes.. APR_LOCKALL can be replaced by APR_INTRAPROCESS.. I've done that
> change and also have introduced CRYPTO_dynamic locks.. I shall send that
> patch soon..

FWIW, I tried CRYPTO_dynamic locks in flood and OpenSSL never called
those functions.  I had to use the "static" locks.  Was I missing
something?  Also, aren't dynamic locks a recent addition?  -- justin