Re: 1.1.1f
Aehm, do you remember the PR #9864 were we (not me, I did approve, but I was unable to get a second approval) failed to approve the PR, so the author just closed his PR and went fishing instead. I think we need to revive that PR somehow. That is IMHO a security relevant issue when you cannot use the correct prefix with spaces, as they are in Windows. Can that one at least considered for inclusion? Thanks Bernd. On 3/26/20 9:13 PM, 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, > 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, >> 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, 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 >>>>>>> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA= >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matthias >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From**:* openssl-project >>>>>> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry >>>>>>> Belyavsky >>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM >>>>>>> *To:* Matt Caswell 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 >>>>>> <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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco= >>>>>> ) >>>>>>> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE= >>>>>> ). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>
Re: 1.1.1f
There seems to be broad support for a 1.1.1f release. Unless I hear an OMC objection I will formally announce this tomorrow. Matt On 27/03/2020 00:10, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:33:40PM +, Matt Caswell wrote: > >> On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: >>> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly, why does everyone here think we should move even faster now? What is the reason for this? >>> >>> We've published a bug-fix release (1.1.1e) that's liable to cause more >>> problems than it fixes. In such cases a closely-timed "fixup" (oops) >>> release is expected. One that only reverts the (two) problem >>> EOF-handling commits. >> >> Actually a partial revert of one of them is sufficient to resolve the >> problem. > > Yes, probably so. I took a sledge-hammer to the problem, and since the > second commit depended on the first, I reverted both. If you leave > the pre-requisites for the second commit in place, and just remove > the changed error handling, then indeed that may also work. >
Re: 1.1.1f
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:33:40PM +, Matt Caswell wrote: > On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > > > >> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly, > >> why does everyone here think we should move even faster now? > >> > >> What is the reason for this? > > > > We've published a bug-fix release (1.1.1e) that's liable to cause more > > problems than it fixes. In such cases a closely-timed "fixup" (oops) > > release is expected. One that only reverts the (two) problem > > EOF-handling commits. > > Actually a partial revert of one of them is sufficient to resolve the > problem. Yes, probably so. I took a sledge-hammer to the problem, and since the second commit depended on the first, I reverted both. If you leave the pre-requisites for the second commit in place, and just remove the changed error handling, then indeed that may also work. -- Viktor.
Re: 1.1.1f
On 26/03/2020 23:15, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly, >> why does everyone here think we should move even faster now? >> >> What is the reason for this? > > We've published a bug-fix release (1.1.1e) that's liable to cause more > problems than it fixes. In such cases a closely-timed "fixup" (oops) > release is expected. One that only reverts the (two) problem > EOF-handling commits. Actually a partial revert of one of them is sufficient to resolve the problem. Matt > Further bug-fixes can be queued for later > releases, or deferred to a major release as appropriate. >
Re: 1.1.1f
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 09:13:32PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > we got into this situation because everything moves so quickly, > why does everyone here think we should move even faster now? > > What is the reason for this? We've published a bug-fix release (1.1.1e) that's liable to cause more problems than it fixes. In such cases a closely-timed "fixup" (oops) release is expected. One that only reverts the (two) problem EOF-handling commits. Further bug-fixes can be queued for later releases, or deferred to a major release as appropriate. -- Viktor.
Re: 1.1.1f
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, 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, > 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, 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 >>>>>> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA= >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthias >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From**:* openssl-project >>>>> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry >>>>>> Belyavsky >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM >>>>>> *To:* Matt Caswell 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 >>>>> <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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco= >>>>> ) >>>>>> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE= >>>>> ). >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Re: 1.1.1f
We don't guarantee constant time. Tim. On Fri, 27 Mar 2020, 5:41 am Bernd Edlinger, 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, 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 > >>>> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA= > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Matthias > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> *From**:* openssl-project >>>> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry > >>>> Belyavsky > >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM > >>>> *To:* Matt Caswell 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 >>>> <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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco= > >>> ) > >>>> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE= > >>> ). > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>> > >> > > >
Re: 1.1.1f
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, 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 >>>> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA= >>> >>>> >>>> Matthias >>>> >>>> >>>> *From**:* openssl-project >>> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry >>>> Belyavsky >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM >>>> *To:* Matt Caswell 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 >>> <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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco= >>> ) >>>> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE= >>> ). >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >
Re: 1.1.1f
+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, 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 > >> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA= > > > >> > >> Matthias > >> > >> > >> *From**:* openssl-project >> <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry > >> Belyavsky > >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM > >> *To:* Matt Caswell 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 >> <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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco= > >) > >> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE= > >). > >> > >> 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 > > >
Re: 1.1.1f
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 >> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA=> >> >> Matthias >> >> >> *From**:* openssl-project > <mailto:openssl-project-boun...@openssl.org>> *On Behalf Of *Dmitry >> Belyavsky >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM >> *To:* Matt Caswell 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 > <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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco=>) >> 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE=>). >> >> 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 >
Re: 1.1.1f
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. -- -Todd Short // 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 > 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=djWoIIXyggxwOfbwrmYGrSJdR5tWm06IdzY9x9tDxkA=> > > Matthias > > > From: openssl-project On Behalf Of > Dmitry Belyavsky > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM > To: Matt Caswell > Cc: openssl-project@openssl.org > Subject: Re: 1.1.1f > > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell <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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=MAiLjfGJWaKvnBvqnM4fcyvGVfUyj9CDANO_vh4wfco=>) > 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=DwMGaQ=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg=QBEcQsqoUDdk1Q26CzlzNPPUkKYWIh1LYsiHAwmtRik=87AtfQDFl1z9cdRP12QeRUizmgnW6ejbufNT40Gip4Q=3hBU2pt84DQlrY1dCnSn9x1ah1gSzH6NEO_bNRH-6DE=>). > > 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 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: 1.1.1f
On 3/26/20 3:14 PM, Matt Caswell wrote: > The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has > resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). > > 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? > How about adding #11411 constant time AES no-asm support then? that should be safe, as it is something that is not enabled by default. > Matt >
RE: 1.1.1f
> 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 Never mind my last comment. I noticed a lot of discussion has been going on in issue #11378 and I was not quite up-to-date. Matthias
RE: 1.1.1f
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 Matthias From: openssl-project On Behalf Of Dmitry Belyavsky Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 3:48 PM To: Matt Caswell Cc: openssl-project@openssl.org Subject: Re: 1.1.1f On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell mailto:m...@openssl.org>> wrote: The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). 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
Re: 1.1.1f
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 5:14 PM Matt Caswell wrote: > The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has > resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). > > 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
Re: 1.1.1f
On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 14:14 +, Matt Caswell wrote: > The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has > resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). > > 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 think my opinion is clear from the discussions in GitHub. But for the record: Yes, I agree with it, unless we know of anything major just ahead. -- Tomáš Mráz No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back. Turkish proverb [You'll know whether the road is wrong if you carefully listen to your conscience.]
Re: 1.1.1f
On 3/26/20 3:14 PM, Matt Caswell wrote: > The EOF issue (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/11378) has > resulted in us reverting the original EOF change in the 1.1.1 branch > (https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/11400). > > 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? > slow down? > Matt >
