Thread sanitiser problems
Matthias St. Pierre
Matthias.St.Pierre at ncp-e.com
Tue Jul 30 07:08:37 UTC 2019
On 30.07.19 04:42, Dr Paul Dale wrote:
> Bringing the discussions over to the project list.
That's a very good idea Pauli to bring this subject to a wider audience for discussion.
I would like to take the opportunity to re-post a general remark which I made in
> I am convinced that issues #9454 and #9455 might be only the tip of an iceberg
> and we shouldn't just narrow down our focus and fix them as isolated issues.
> Instead, the @openssl/omc should take them as an indication that it might be
> necessary to pause and rethink the rules for how and when the low level core
> routines are allowed to utilize higer level crypto routines (like RAND_bytes()).
> Also, locking rules might be necessary to prevent lock-order inversion (#9454 (comment)).
> Or it might be necessary to simplify the design, e.g. by replacing the context lock
> and the store lock by a single lock.
> There has been a lot of replumbing going on recently and we need to take care that
> the overall structure of OpenSSL remains stable and manageable. The double and
> recursive lock issues are an indicator that things have become more complicated
> "under the hood" (or should I say more appropriately "under the washing stand"?)
> The original OpenSSL 3.0.0 Design document is only a snapshot from the very beginning.
> It has not changed recently, and it might be a good time now to explitly write down
> all the changes and innovations which have taken place since then.
More information about the openssl-project