> On 29 Jan 2021, at 19:46, Jacob Champion <pchamp...@vmware.com> wrote:
> I think the bad news is that the static approach will need support for > ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY. I did some more reading today and noticed that the NSS documentation (and their sample code for doing crypto without TLS connections) says to use NSS_NoDB_Init to perform a read-only init which don't require a matching close call. Now, the docs aren't terribly clear and also seems to have gone offline from MDN, and skimming the code isn't entirelt self-explanatory, so I may well have missed something. The v24 patchset posted changes to this and at least passes tests with decent performance so it seems worth investigating. > (It looks like the NSS implementation of pgtls_close() needs some thread > support too?) Storing the context in conn would probably be better? > The good(?) news is that I don't understand why OpenSSL's > implementation of cryptohash doesn't _also_ need the thread-safety > code. (Shouldn't we need to call CRYPTO_set_locking_callback() et al > before using any of its cryptohash implementation?) So maybe we can > implement the same global setup/teardown API for OpenSSL too and not > have to one-off it for NSS... No idea here, wouldn't that impact pgcrypto as well in that case? -- Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
