On 26/03/2020 20:13, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/26/20 9:10 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
>> We don't guarantee constant time.
>>
> 
> #11411 does, I don't see why we hurry so much for 1.1.1f
> 
> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly,

We waited 6 months to release 1.1.1e. This issue wasn't caused by moving
too quickly.

Matt


> why does everyone here think we should move even faster now?
> 
> What is the reason for this?
> 
> Bernd.
> 
>> Tim.
>>
>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, 5:41 am Bernd Edlinger, <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So I disagree, it is a bug when it is not constant time.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/26/20 8:26 PM, Tim Hudson wrote:
>>>> +1 for a release - and soon - and without bundling any more changes. The
>>>> circumstances justify getting this fix out. But I also think we need to
>>>> keep improvements that aren't bug fixes out of stable branches.
>>>>
>>>> Tim.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, 3:12 am Matt Caswell, <m...@openssl.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 26/03/2020 15:14, Short, Todd wrote:
>>>>>> This type of API-braking change should be reserved for something like
>>>>>> 3.0, not a patch release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Despite it being a "incorrect", it is expected behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Right - but the question now is not whether we should revert it (it has
>>>>> been reverted) - but whether this should trigger a 1.1.1f release soon?
>>>>>
>>>>> Matt
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> -Todd Short
>>>>>> // tsh...@akamai.com <mailto:tsh...@akamai.com>
>>>>>> // “One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 2020, at 11:03 AM, Dr. Matthias St. Pierre
>>>>>>> <matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com <mailto:matthias.st.pie...@ncp-e.com>>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree, go ahead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please also consider reverting the change for the 3.0 alpha release as
>>>>>>> well, see Daniel Stenbergs comment
>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378#issuecomment-603730581
>>>>>>> <
>>>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_issues_11378-23issuecomment-2D603730581&d=DwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik&m=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q&s=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Matthias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From**:* openssl-project <openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry
>>>>>>> Belyavsky
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org <mailto:m...@openssl.org>>
>>>>>>> *Cc:* openssl-project@openssl.org <mailto:openssl-project@openssl.org
>>>>
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: 1.1.1f
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell <m...@openssl.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:m...@openssl.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378
>>>>>>>     <
>>>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_issues_11378&d=DwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik&m=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q&s=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco&e=
>>>>>> )
>>>>>>>     has
>>>>>>>     resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1
>>> branch
>>>>>>>     (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400
>>>>>>>     <
>>>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_openssl_openssl_pull_11400&d=DwMGaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik&m=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q&s=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE&e=
>>>>>> ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Given that this seems to have broken quite a bit of stuff, I
>>> propose
>>>>>>>     that we do a 1.1.1f soon (possibly next Tuesday - 31st March).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I strongly support this idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

Reply via email to