TLDR: Strands serialise resources shared across completion handlers: how does that prevent the ssl::stream implementation from concurrent access of the SSL context (used internally) for concurrent read/write requests (stream::ssl is not full duplex)? Remember, strands only serialise the completion handler invocation or the original queueing of the read/write requests. [Thanks to sehe for helping me express this better]
I've spent most of a day reading about ASIO, SSL and strands; mostly on stackoverflow (which has some VERY detailed and well expressed explanations, e.g. Why do I need strand per connection when using boost::asio?), and the Boost documentation; but one point remains unclear.
Obviously strands can serialise invocation of callbacks within the same strand, and so also serialise access to resources shared by those strands.
But it seems to me that the problem with boost::asio::ssl::stream isn't in the completion handler callbacks because it's not the callbacks that are operating concurrently on the SSL context, but the ssl::stream implementation that is.
I can't be confident that use of strands in calling async_read_some and async_write_some, or that use of strands for the completion handler, will prevent the io engine from operating on the SSL context at the same time in different threads.
Clearly strand use while calling async_read_some or async_write_some will mean that the read and write can't be queued at the same instant, but I don't see how that prevents the internal implementation from performing the read and write operations at the same time on different threads if the encapsulated tcp::socket becomes ready for read and write at the same time.
Comments at the end of the last answer to this question boost asio - SSL async_read and async_write from one thread claim that concurrent writes to ssl::stream could segfault rather than merely interleave, suggesting that the implementation is not taking the necessary locks to guard against concurrent access.
Unless the actual delayed socket write is bound to the thread/strand that queued it (which I can't see being true, or it would undermine the usefulness of worker threads), how can I be confident that it is possible to queue a read and a write on the same ssl::stream, or what that way could be?
Perhaps the async_write_some processes all of the data with the SSL context immediately, to produce encrypted data, and then becomes a plain socket write, and so then can't conflict with a read completion handler on the same strand, but it doesn't mean that it can't conflict with the internal implementations socket-read-and-decrypt before the completion handler gets queued on the strand. Never mind transparent SSL session re-negotiation that might happen...
I note from: Why do I need strand per connection when using boost::asio? "Composed operations are unique in that intermediate calls to the stream are invoked within the handler's strand, if one is present, instead of the strand in which the composed operation is initiated." but I'm not sure if what I am refering to are "intermediate calls to the stream". Does it mean: "any subsequent processing within that stream implementation"? I suspect not
And finally, for why-oh-why, why doesn't the ssl::stream implementation use a futex or other lock that is cheap when there is no conflict? If the strand rules (implicit or explicit) were followed, then the cost would be almost non-existent, but it would provide safety otherwise. I ask because I've just transitioned the propaganda of Sutter, Stroustrup and the rest, that C++ makes everything better and safer, to ssl::stream where it seems easy to follow certain spells but almost impossible to know if your code is actually safe.
