[37100] in Kerberos
Re: Does this separate thread connection need another as_req/rep pair?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benjamin Kaduk)
Sat Jun 20 17:00:45 2015
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@MIT.EDU>
To: Chris Hecker <checker@d6.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOdMLc114MOz0Uxhgf_FQoC=SacSHNKwwUybWF=MmEzO2xNv2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.1.10.1506201658110.22210@multics.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "kerberos@mit.edu" <kerberos@MIT.EDU>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: kerberos-bounces@MIT.EDU
On Sat, 20 Jun 2015, Chris Hecker wrote:
> I think was unclear. I don't think there's a way to avoid a wasted
> allocation here. I'm happy to have separate keys per thread, but there are
> three keyblocks allocated in this scenario: there's the original, get
> allocates a copy, set allocates a copy, then I have to free the one from
> get because it's not used. There should be a version of set that takes
> ownership of the memory, I think. Make sense?
I do now understand what you were saying in a way that I did not before;
thanks for the clarification.
That said, I don't think that API should exist outside your personal fork,
since it's only useful in specific cases and complicates the memory
ownership story.
-Ben
________________________________________________
Kerberos mailing list Kerberos@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/kerberos
