[openssl-users] Replacing CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS on migration 101 to 110

Charles Mills charlesm at mcn.org
Wed Oct 18 21:20:21 UTC 2017

Wow! Thanks. 


You are saying to just drop out this array, and the two
CRYPTO_set_..._callback() functions, and the functions they reference?




From: openssl-users [mailto:openssl-users-bounces at openssl.org] On Behalf Of
Paul Dale
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 2:14 PM
To: openssl-users at openssl.org
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] Replacing CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS on migration 101 to


OpenSSL 1.1.x handle the locking themselves.  You don't need to install the
locking call backs and don't need to provide locking functionality.





Dr Paul Dale | Cryptographer | Network Security & Encryption 

Phone +61 7 3031 7217

Oracle Australia


From: Charles Mills [mailto:charlesm at mcn.org] 
Sent: Thursday, 19 October 2017 6:09 AM
To: openssl-users at openssl.org
Subject: [openssl-users] Replacing CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS on migration 101 to 110


I am migrating a multi-threaded Windows application from OpenSSL 1.0.1h to


I am using the Shining Light pre-built Windows DLLs.


The code, which I wrote some time ago, has a statement HANDLE


The array is referenced by my sslLockingFunction.


When I compile with the 1.1.0f headers I get at undefined symbol on


Is my understanding of
http://www.manpagez.com/man/3/CRYPTO_num_locks/osx-10.3.php correct?
Basically, I need to replace the static array
sslMutexArray[CRYPTO_NUM_LOCKS] with a malloc() or new to get an array of
the size returned by a call to CRYPTO_num_locks(void)? Is that correct?
Anything else I need to do in this regard?






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mta.openssl.org/pipermail/openssl-users/attachments/20171018/f140b4f5/attachment.html>

More information about the openssl-users mailing list