RE: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL

2013-06-20 Thread Parashuram Narasimhan (MS OPEN TECH)
Hi, I realize it has only been a few days since we originally posted this patch for Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) support. I just wanted to expand on why we think this is an important patch for OpenSSL. The latest HTTP/2.0 draft specifies support for a TLS extension called ALPN

[openssl.org #3077] rbuf_freelist and wbuf_freelist corrupted.

2013-06-20 Thread 2234822 jeff via RT
I am using openssl-1.0.1 in my 32bit app on 64bit Windows, I got a crash in ssleay32!freelist_extract(See Call Stack in the OTHER INFO section as follow), it is not easy to recreate it and we cannot find a stable way to recreate it, but it happened several times. After looking into the dump file

Re: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL

2013-06-20 Thread Piotr Sikora
Hi, We really want to work with you to get this patch into OpenSSL to help developers of HTTP/2.0 draft implementations. We welcome your assistance to review this patch. What really makes this patch unusable (at least for us) is this snippet: +#if !defined(OPENSSL_NO_NEXTPROTONEG)

RE: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL

2013-06-20 Thread Jeff Mendoza (MS OPEN TECH)
-Original Message- From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Piotr Sikora Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:41 AM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL We simply cannot drop support for NPN

Re: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL

2013-06-20 Thread Piotr Sikora
Hey Jeff, The idea is to have the choice as a ./config option. The default will stay as NPN, as to not disrupt anyone. I don't have this in the patch yet. Yeah, my point was that in the perfect world, you'd support both at runtime (at least on the server-side) and either ALPN or NPN could be

RE: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL

2013-06-20 Thread Jeff Mendoza (MS OPEN TECH)
Yeah, my point was that in the perfect world, you'd support both at runtime (at least on the server-side) and either ALPN or NPN could be used. I want to have a library that supports both, not either-or. Yes, supporting both at runtime would be best. But having a compile-time option now, and

Re: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL

2013-06-20 Thread Piotr Sikora
Hey, Yes, supporting both at runtime would be best. But having a compile-time option now, and defaulting to NPN should keep this from being a blocking issue with the patch, correct? It would also make it kind of useless, at least from my non-authoritative point of view. Best regards, Piotr

Re: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL

2013-06-20 Thread Thor Lancelot Simon
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 09:30:32PM +, Jeff Mendoza (MS OPEN TECH) wrote: Yeah, my point was that in the perfect world, you'd support both at runtime (at least on the server-side) and either ALPN or NPN could be used. I want to have a library that supports both, not either-or. Yes,

Re: [Patch] ALPN Implementation for OpenSSL

2013-06-20 Thread Ben Laurie
On 20 June 2013 21:46, Jeff Mendoza (MS OPEN TECH) jemen...@microsoft.com wrote: -Original Message- From: owner-openssl-...@openssl.org [mailto:owner-openssl-...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Piotr Sikora Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:41 AM To: openssl-dev@openssl.org Subject: Re: