Skip to content

TLSv1.3: Upgrade ossltest and TLSProxy#1805

Closed
mattcaswell wants to merge 3 commits intoopenssl:masterfrom
mattcaswell:tls1_3-fix-ossltest
Closed

TLSv1.3: Upgrade ossltest and TLSProxy#1805
mattcaswell wants to merge 3 commits intoopenssl:masterfrom
mattcaswell:tls1_3-fix-ossltest

Conversation

@mattcaswell
Copy link
Member

@mattcaswell mattcaswell commented Oct 30, 2016

Checklist
  • tests are added or updated
Description of change

This builds on #1804. Please ignore the changes from the first 4 commits that are also in that PR.

This upgrades the ossltest engine so that it knows how to deal with a GCM based ciphersuite. It also upgrades TLSProxy so that it will use it where TLSv1.3 has been negotiated, and fixes some tests to work where TLSv1.3 is being used. This will enable us to write tests for the forthcoming TLSv1.3 implementation.

apps/s_server.c Outdated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Reverse order? That's... amusing ;-)

test/testutil.c Outdated
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Errr... is this some debugging code that slipped through?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes...but you're reviewing the commits from #1804 that I said to ignore for this PR!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, went through the "Files changed" tab without thinking...

@levitte
Copy link
Member

levitte commented Oct 31, 2016

Hmmm, I made that approval when looking over the TLSproxy commit, I thought it might possibly restrict the approval to just the changes in that commit.... Apparently not. But yeah, as far as approvals go, it's for the commits that actually does belong in this PR.

@mattcaswell
Copy link
Member Author

Yes - understood - that's what I would have interpreted it as given I told you to ignore the other commits! I assume you also checked the ossltest commit too.

@levitte
Copy link
Member

levitte commented Oct 31, 2016

I did

ssl/ssl_ciph.c Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

shouldn't we use the ctype macros here?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a comment on a commit from #1804 - so not relevant to this PR. Depending on where we end up with ciphersuite naming we might not need this change anyway...this was to allow "_" in ciphersuite names.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

blank line before/after the define?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

moce this init up to the var decl?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

remove the ret variable and just do "return EVP..."

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

ssl/ssl_lib.c Outdated
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

did i already comment on making this a switch statement?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes...fixed in #1804....not a commit for this PR

@mattcaswell
Copy link
Member Author

New commit pushed to address feedback comments.

@mattcaswell
Copy link
Member Author

I rebased this on top of the latest version of #1804 (that now has 4 commits so please ignore the first 4).

That picked up the new ciphersuite name, so there is an amendment in this one to use it.

Any more comments on this one?

This might need more changes once we do a "real" TLS1.3 ciphersuite. But it
should do for now.
Now that ossltest knows about a TLS1.3 cipher we can now do TLS1.3 in
TLSProxy
Based on feedback received
@mattcaswell
Copy link
Member Author

Grrr...I missed a spot in Proxy.pm renaming to the new ciphersuite name. @richsalz please reconfirm?

@richsalz
Copy link
Contributor

richsalz commented Nov 2, 2016

yes +1

@mattcaswell
Copy link
Member Author

Merged. Thanks.

@mattcaswell mattcaswell closed this Nov 2, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants