Skip to content

Conversation

frozencemetery
Copy link
Member

The name it creates holds a copy of the OID, which we need to release.

Signed-off-by: Robbie Harwood rharwood@redhat.com

The name it creates holds a copy of the OID, which we need to release.

Signed-off-by: Robbie Harwood <rharwood@redhat.com>
@simo5
Copy link
Contributor

simo5 commented Aug 26, 2020

The patch is obviously right.
however I wonder if we should instead try to use static OIDs so we do not have to allocate a copy of the OID at all ?

@simo5
Copy link
Contributor

simo5 commented Aug 26, 2020

After all we can only handle known OIDs, so at worst, if someone passes in a copy we can match the OID to a known one and then set the known static oid on any output we generate ?

@simo5
Copy link
Contributor

simo5 commented Aug 26, 2020

I am going to commit this as obviously correct , and defer further discussion to #9 and #11

@simo5 simo5 merged commit 482349f into gssapi:main Aug 26, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants