On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 03:32:20PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>
> > Le 30 nov. 2017 à 13:34, Olivier Houchard a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Emmanuel,
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
> >> Hi Olivier,
> >>
> >>> Le 29 nov. 2017 à 19:57, Olivier Houchard a écri
> Le 30 nov. 2017 à 13:34, Olivier Houchard a écrit :
>
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>> Hi Olivier,
>>
>>> Le 29 nov. 2017 à 19:57, Olivier Houchard a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 06:19:41PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>
Hi Emmanuel,
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:15:37PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
>
> > Le 29 nov. 2017 à 19:57, Olivier Houchard a écrit :
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 06:19:41PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
> >>> Maybe the best is to add a new flag per conn_stream, CS_FL_WAITING
> Le 30 nov. 2017 à 12:15, Emmanuel Hocdet a écrit :
>
> In this case, i don’t understand the interest of ssl_fc_has_early.
>
> looking at the documentation
> ssl_fc_has_early : boolean
> Returns true if early data were sent, and the handshake didn't happen yet.
> As
> it has security impl
Hi Olivier,
> Le 29 nov. 2017 à 19:57, Olivier Houchard a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 06:19:41PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>>> Maybe the best is to add a new flag per conn_stream, CS_FL_WAITING_FOR_HS or
>>> something, instead of relying on CO_FL_EARLY_DATA.
>>> I think I'm going to
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 06:19:41PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
> > Maybe the best is to add a new flag per conn_stream, CS_FL_WAITING_FOR_HS or
> > something, instead of relying on CO_FL_EARLY_DATA.
> > I think I'm going to do something like that.
>
> I think it's a good idea, two different thin
Hi Manu,
On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:40:46PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
> Can you consider the first patch (included here).
> As Olivier said, the fix for ssl_fc_has_early need more works.
OK now merged and backported, thanks!
Willy
Hi Willy,
Can you consider the first patch (included here).
As Olivier said, the fix for ssl_fc_has_early need more works.
Can be backported to 1.8
++
Manu
0001-BUG-MINOR-ssl-CO_FL_EARLY_DATA-removal-is-managed-by.patch
Description: Binary data
> Le 27 nov. 2017 à 17:52, Olivier Houchard a écrit :
>
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:17:54PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This patch fix CO_FL_EARLY_DATA removal to have correct ssl_fc_has_early
>> reporting. It work for 'mode http'.
>>
>> It does not fix ss
Hi Emmanuel,
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 05:17:54PM +0100, Emmanuel Hocdet wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This patch fix CO_FL_EARLY_DATA removal to have correct ssl_fc_has_early
> reporting. It work for 'mode http'.
>
> It does not fix ssl_fc_has_early for 'mode tcp'. In this mode CO_FL_EARLY_DATA
> should no
Hi,
This patch fix CO_FL_EARLY_DATA removal to have correct ssl_fc_has_early
reporting. It work for 'mode http'.
It does not fix ssl_fc_has_early for 'mode tcp'. In this mode CO_FL_EARLY_DATA
should not be removed if early data was accepted.
It is possible to check MODE_TCP in mux_pt_recv? Or th
11 matches
Mail list logo