With r1729581, all seems fine again in handshake land.

Stefan

> Am 09.02.2016 um 21:54 schrieb Stefan Eissing <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de>:
> 
> Testing in trunk, 2.4.x seems to be fine. It's the httpd/test/mod_h2/trunk 
> test cases (do not expect you to get that running). I will take a closer look 
> tomorrow as there is more fishy than just the renegotiation. I see more 
> failures than that. I will try an earlier mod_ssl tomorrow and try to narrow 
> it down.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Stefan
> 
>> Am 09.02.2016 um 21:47 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de>:
>> 
>> Am 09.02.2016 um 20:03 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
>>> 
>>>> Am 09.02.2016 um 19:58 schrieb Rainer Jung <rainer.j...@kippdata.de>:
>>>> 
>>>> Am 09.02.2016 um 19:20 schrieb Stefan Eissing:
>>>>> Ah, closer look revealed that the first test was a cipher renegotiation 
>>>>> using HTTP/1.1. That no longer works, but the slave connection checks do. 
>>>>> So, false alarm on that front. Will disable the renegotiation tests that 
>>>>> fail for now until the 1.1.0 openssl work is done...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sorry for the confusion.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 09.02.2016 um 19:11 schrieb Stefan Eissing 
>>>>>> <stefan.eiss...@greenbytes.de>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With the new renegotiate code, I get failures in trunk for my tests that 
>>>>>> expect renegotiation to fail on slave connections. Rainer, not sure how 
>>>>>> this works now. Can you have a look?
>>>> 
>>>> No problem, thanks for doing tests as well. Yes, the cipher change reneg 
>>>> is still expected to fail (only when using OpenSSL 1.1.0).
>>> 
>>> Was using OpenSSL 1.0.2 in my tests...
>> 
>> That's strange then, because I didn't (intentionally) change the behavior 
>> for pre 1.1.0. Instead I tried to keep the code the same in that case and 
>> postpone any cleanups (let pre-1.1.0 use the same code as 1.1.0) to the time 
>> 1.1.0 runs fine.
>> 
>> So could it be something else? Is it a test case which is part of the test 
>> suite? If yes, which one? Which version (trunk or 2.4) did you test. I would 
>> try to reproduce here.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Rainer
>> 
> 

Reply via email to