Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C86511D8B for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:50:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 80890 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2014 18:49:59 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 80833 invoked by uid 500); 2 Jun 2014 18:49:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 80825 invoked by uid 99); 2 Jun 2014 18:49:59 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 18:49:59 +0000 Received: by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 2161) id 5876011D8A; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 18:49:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by gauss.localdomain (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954BEE26 for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 20:49:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <538CC751.6040000@apache.org> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:49:53 +0200 From: Ruediger Pluem User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dev@httpd.apache.org Subject: Re: Memory leak in mod_ssl ssl_callback_TmpDH References: <5376ECEE.5090707@kippdata.de> <53805923.8060400@velox.ch> <20140527085107.GA6584@redhat.com> <5384F695.8070008@apache.org> <53858AA2.6050600@velox.ch> <20140528134240.GA14882@redhat.com> <20140528193411.GA26366@redhat.com> <538642A8.5040702@apache.org> <20140529123339.GA14091@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20140529123339.GA14091@redhat.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Joe Orton wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:10:16PM +0200, Ruediger Pluem wrote: >> Thanks, but I missed some stuff during review: >> >> 1. We don't need to have two DH pointers in make_dh_params > > Doh! > >> 2. There possible frees on NULL pointers in free_dh_params: > > This is unnecessary because DH_free() does that already, but that > deserves a comment too. I'll fix this with your patch for (1) shortly, > thanks! > Are you waiting for any action from my side? Just want to avoid that we wait for each other and deadlock :-) Regards Rüdiger