apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@apache.org>
Subject Re: APR SSLMutex win32 2.0.45 RC1
Date Wed, 26 Mar 2003 21:00:14 GMT
At 9:31 PM +0100 3/26/03, Andre Schild wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I did some investigations on this message and found the following:
>
>Using SSLMutex default results in no-filename for the mutex.
>    In the comments to this, there it stays:
>    mc->szMutexFile = NULL; /* APR determines temporary filename */
>
>We should initialize the mutexfilename with something "unique" in
>ssl_engine_config.c
>
>Instead of:
>    mc->szMutexFile = NULL; /* APR determines temporary filename */
>
>Proposition:
>  mc->szMutexFile = apr_psprintf(mc->pPool, "%s.%lu",
>           "Apache_OPENSSLMutex", (unsigned long)getpid());
>
>Sidenote:
>
>The win32 implementations of apr_proc_mutex_create and
>apr_proc_mutex_child_init
>don't generate a error or print a warning when the (required)
>parameter
>fname is NULL.
>Would be nice if the APR notified this as an error......
>

I'm +1 for having the SSLMutex code autogen a bogus fname. I can add
this quickly... but please read below.

Also, despite the comments, we don't really honor it. For example,
proc_mutex_fcntl_create() doesn't require it and is smart enough
to do the right thing. So maybe it's more an issue for APR (that
is, have each implementation not only determine if an fname is needed,
but also create one ala proc_mutex_fcntl_create(). In fact, I
would almost kind of prefer that since naming conventions could
vary. For example, would /tmp/apr879879 be OK under Win32? Again,
this is just the sort of abstraction I think would be prefect in
APR.
-- 
===========================================================================
   Jim Jagielski   [|]   jim@jaguNET.com   [|]   http://www.jaguNET.com/
      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
             will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson

Mime
View raw message