> The observation is correct, but the conclusion is wrong. > The object is reference counted, and X509_free() is needed > to avoid a leak (when the store is freed along with the > context).
My apologies -- I assumed based on its name that X509_OBJECT_up_ref_count was upping the refcount on the internal X509_OBJECT, which had taken over the X509*, which led to my conclusion that freeing the X509_STORE frees the X509 too. However, you're right, it ups the refcount on the underlying X509, and so the caller *should* free the underlying object when finished with it. I've now confirmed with a quick test program and valgrind. Oops, -Dave -- openssl-users mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
