Re: Locking a mutex by name?

[Ron <ron () skullsecurity net>]

Patrick Donnelly wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Ron <ron () skullsecurity net> wrote:
>
> The problem you are experiencing is the mutex is being garbage
> collected during the time between you lock it and release it. The
> mutexes are stored internally with weak references to allow them to be
> collected when no longer used. The registry is holding onto that
> reference for you. It is normally expected you use a local reference
> to the mutex. I would recommend you not store the reference in the
> registry and instead keep it local or in the function's (that is, your
> script) environment.

Ah, that would explain the behaviour.

The issue is that multiple scripts need to use the same mutex. If there
are three scripts using SMB against a single host, they need to run
individually. Due to a "feature" in Windows, you can't make more than
one SMB connection at the same time from the same IP.

Do you think that storing them in the registry is a good bet, or do you
see a better way of doing mutexes on a global level?

Ron

-- 
Ron Bowes
http://www.skullsecurity.org/

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org