Thread sanitiser problems

Matthias St. Pierre Matthias.St.Pierre at
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 mailing list