On 2007-03-04 Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 11:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > currently log_fatal() ends up invoking exit(2). Is this really the > > right thing to do? It does not give applications using libgcrypt any > Yes. It allows application to run an atexit handler. Libgcrypt even > allows to register a dedicated handler: gcry_set_fatalerror_handler. > In any case the process needs to terminate as their is a fatal error > and something is going really wrong. Allow a process to continue is > not a good idea because it allows bugs to lurk around for years > without fixing. Such a bug is an indicator that something more severe > might have gone wrong. Hmm, in this specific case (libnns-ldap failing due to missing /dev/(u)random devices in early boot when connecting to the ldap server using a ssl protected session.) the only thing actually using gcrypt directly is gnutls. Should gnutls have setup an error handler using gcry_set_fatalerror_handler? cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
