Prevent resumption between "incompatible" clients#2361
Merged
Conversation
Benchmark resultsInstruction countsSignificant differencesClick to expand
Other differencesClick to expand
Wall-timeSignificant differencesClick to expand
Other differencesClick to expand
Additional informationCheckout details:
|
ac0df36 to
426d6bf
Compare
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2361 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 94.90% 94.78% -0.12%
==========================================
Files 103 103
Lines 24551 24641 +90
==========================================
+ Hits 23299 23357 +58
- Misses 1252 1284 +32 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
djc
reviewed
Mar 1, 2025
Member
|
What about the server? Is there something that prevents similar incompatible resumption issues across server configs? |
Member
Author
Yeah I'd probably do the same for |
cpu
approved these changes
Mar 3, 2025
"Compatible" here means they have ~interchangeable security, which means they have the same server certificate verifier and same potentially-offered client credentials. "Same" is defined by `Arc` equality, which means a rustls user wishing to arrange for multiple `ClientConfig`s to share a `resumption` _also_ now need to share the `client_auth_cert_resolver` and `verifier`. (The way to do this is to clone-and-edit the original config, or keep hold of the verifier and insert it using the `dangerous().set_certificate_verifier()`.)
426d6bf to
42c1d0a
Compare
djc
approved these changes
Mar 10, 2025
Member
Author
|
(Plan to address the coverage gaps here shortly.) |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
"Compatible" here means they have ~interchangeable security, which means they have the same server certificate verifier and same potentially-offered client credentials.
"Same" is defined by
Arcequality, which means a rustls user wishing to arrange for multipleClientConfigs to share aresumptionalso now need to share theclient_auth_cert_resolverandverifier. A non-dangerousfunction is provided which does this, and also provides a convenient place to document the problem we are solving here.If we think this is a reasonably-shaped solution to this problem, I will do similar for servers.
fixes #2284