Am Montag, 22. Juni 2009 15:55:58 schrieben Sie: > Lars Kanis wrote: > >> Should we not also call ENGINE_finish() and ENGINE_free() in the success > >> path of this code? Your patch adds it to the case where we didn't get > >> the private key, but what if we did? I assume they should also go > >> outside the error path, per the attached patch - or will that break > >> their usage? > > > > That's right. I thought about it, but I don't know where the right place > > is. > > > >> Can you test that and verify that it doesn't break for you? > > > > It breaks with Segmentation fault in my smartcard-based setup. The > > pkey-handle is all we have from the engine, when client_cert_cb() is > > finished. Obviously the ref-counting of openssl does not take the > > pkey-handle into account, so we need to keep the engine_ptr for later > > freeing. > > So we need to keep the engine initialized during this time? Ugh. We > don't currently carry around the engine pointer. I guess we have to. > > > close_SSL() should be the right place for ENGINE_finish() and > > ENGINE_free() ? > > Yup. > > How about the attached patch? Does it work for you? Yes, it works perfect. Now, if I close the connection, the engine is closed too, so I have to type the PIN another time for a next connection. That should be the correct behaviour.
> > A question from that then, for others, is it Ok to add a field to the > PGconn structure during RC? :-) It's only in libpq-int.h, but? Comments? > Tom, perhaps?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
