Use EVP_PKEY_up_ref if available #238
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
prince-chrismc
approved these changes
Sep 13, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
OpenSSL 1.1.0 introduced the function
EVP_PKEY_up_refwhich exposes the internal reference counting to user applications. The new typeevp_pkey_handletakes advantage of this by providing RAII semantics for EVP_PKEY pointers similar to shared_ptr, but without having to allocate an additional control block.One thing I am not sure about is the constructors/assignment of
evp_pkey_handle. Technically EVP_PKEY_up_ref can return an error, however the only case where this might actually happen is on a plattform without atomics (pretty rare) and the mutex lock operation failed (you're probably screwed anyway if that happens), so I am tempted to replace the throw with std::terminate (or ignore the return value alltogether) and mark them as noexcept. What makes this even more of an option is the fact that EVP_PKEY_free technically has the same issue and ignores the return as well. What do you think about that @prince-chrismc ?