Re: Unclear docs -- request clarification on X509_STORE_add_cert

Karl Denninger <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 2 Jan 2018 20:24:49 -0600

    On 1/2/2018 19:36, Dave Coombs wrote:

        The observation is correct, but the conclusion is wrong.
The object is reference counted, and X509_free() is needed
to avoid a leak (when the store is freed along with the
context).

      My apologies -- I assumed based on its name that X509_OBJECT_up_ref_count was upping the refcount on the internal X509_OBJECT, which had taken over the X509*, which led to my conclusion that freeing the X509_STORE frees the X509 too.  However, you're right, it ups the refcount on the underlying X509, and so the caller *should* free the underlying object when finished with it.

I've now confirmed with a quick test program and valgrind.

Oops,
  -Dave

    Thanks.

    -- 

      Karl Denninger

      karl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

      The Market Ticker

      [S/MIME encrypted email preferred]

Attachment:
smime.p7s

Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- 
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users