You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The C# ProtectedMemorySecret initialization has try/catch logic around the initial copying of the source data to handle edge case failures that could lead to memory leaks (not dealloc'ing). This seems like something that should be in the Java implementation as well. Additionally, there is an inconsistency in the aforementioned C# cleanup handling that is different than the regular cleanup/close path (not doing the pointer exchange).
We had untested changes around this that didn't make it into this public repo. We should normalize the approaches between the languages and update the Secure Memory documentation to reflect it accordingly. May be good opportunity to also verify whether the pointer exchanges are needed (if we're clearing/deallocating anyway).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
* initial secure memory documentation
* Update Internals.md
* minor cleanup and use syntax highlighting to make it a little easier on the eyes
* removing TODO from secure memory documentation
* added #34 to address the issue in code and documentation
The C#
ProtectedMemorySecret
initialization has try/catch logic around the initial copying of the source data to handle edge case failures that could lead to memory leaks (not dealloc'ing). This seems like something that should be in the Java implementation as well. Additionally, there is an inconsistency in the aforementioned C# cleanup handling that is different than the regular cleanup/close path (not doing the pointer exchange).We had untested changes around this that didn't make it into this public repo. We should normalize the approaches between the languages and update the Secure Memory documentation to reflect it accordingly. May be good opportunity to also verify whether the pointer exchanges are needed (if we're clearing/deallocating anyway).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: