[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: memory leaks

To: Julio Sánchez Fernández <j_sanchez@stl.es>
Subject: Re: memory leaks
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 09:23:54 -0800
Cc: Pierangelo Masarati <masarati@aero.polimi.it>, openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
In-reply-to: <1007572008.4323.0.camel@j-sanchez-p.stl.es>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20011205074927.01799340@127.0.0.1> <3C0DE988.BAB4FEB@aero.polimi.it> <Stig Venaas's message of "Tue, 6 Nov 2001 22:47:45 +0100"> <Pine.GSO.4.33L-022.0111051714530.20436-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> <Pine.GSO.4.33L-022.0111061307270.3465-100000@nil.andrew.cmu.edu> <20011106224745.A23464@itea.ntnu.no> <5.1.0.14.0.20011108111257.01792e40@127.0.0.1> <3C0DE988.BAB4FEB@aero.polimi.it> <5.1.0.14.0.20011205071809.0170a500@127.0.0.1> <5.1.0.14.0.20011205074927.01799340@127.0.0.1>

At 09:06 AM 2001-12-05, Julio Sánchez Fernández wrote:
>I think OpenSSL uses just the ASN1 tag to decide on the value syntax.

Yes, but OpenSSL likely assumes that two values which have
identical DER-encoded representations have identical LDAP
syntax string representations.  That assumption is a bad
assumption as two different LDAP syntax may have the same
DER representations but different LDAP string representations.

I agree that in practice you likely won't run into such
cases, especially with DN AVAs, but...

Kurt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: memory leaks
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

References:
- Re: memory leaks
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: memory leaks
  - From: Pierangelo Masarati <masarati@aero.polimi.it>
- Re: memory leaks
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
- Re: memory leaks
  - From: Julio Sánchez Fernández <j_sanchez@stl.es>

Prev by Date: Re: memory leaks
Next by Date: Re: memory leaks
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread