Commit 9b5c865df introduced a synthetic delay between arrival of EoED and
CF. We actually want to delay the arrival of CF even further to demonstrate
that we can write early data even when "in init".
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3091)
If we have received the EoED message but not yet had the CF then we are
"in init". Despite that we still want to write application data, so suppress
the "in init" check in ssl3_write_bytes() in that scenario.
Fixes#3041
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3091)
SSL_get_max_early_data() recently added by 3fc8d85610 ("Construct the
ticket_early_data_info extension", 2017-02-17) is supposed to take an
SSL, but it doesn't.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3113)
This test doesn't actually fail completely, but there's no real
pattern to distinguish which data files should be omitted when no-ec2m
is configured and which should not.
Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3103)
It's of course also possible to just add them to the PR description,
but having these lines in the commit messages provide better
automation.
Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3104)
When creating a single commit PR, github will now automatically
include the commit comment first in the pull request description, and
add the template content last. That makes the description section at
the end useless.
Reviewed-by: Andy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3104)
It seems to be problematic to probe processor capabilities with SIGILL
on MacOS X. The problem should be limited to cases when application code
is debugged, but crashes were reported even during normal execution...
Reviewed-by: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Configure started with 'require 5.10.0', but if executed by older perl
it failed with "might be runaway multi-line // string" instead of
naturally expected "Perl v5.10.0 required--this is only v5.x.y".
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Originally there was dependency on BN configuration parameters, but
it stemmed from times when "long long" support was optional. Today
we require 64-bit support from compiler, and there is no reason to
have "greatest-width integer" depend on BN configuration.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Numerous changes have been made to the supported built-in extensions and
SSL_extension_supported() has not kept up.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3097)
'j' is specified as modifier for "greatest-width integer type", which in
practice means 64 bits on both 32- and 64-bit platforms. Since we rely
on __attribute__((__format__(__printf__,...))) to sanitize BIO_print
format, we can use it to denote [u]int64_t-s in platform-neutral manner.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3083)
s_client was always saying that early_data was rejected even when it was
accepted. This was because it was using the wrong test to detect the end
of the handshake. It was using SSL_in_init() which only tells you whether
it is currently processing/sending/expecting handshake messages. It should
use SSL_is_init_finished() which tells you that no handshake messages are
being processed/sent/expected AND we have completed the handshake. In the
early data case we are not processing/sending handshake messages and we
are expecting early data (not a handshake message) - but the handshake has
not yet completed.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3090)
This tests the bug fixed in the previous commit. We introduce a synthetic
delay between the server receiving EoED and CF and check that we can still
send early data.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3089)
If the server received EoED then SSL_read_early_data() will return
SSL_READ_EARLY_DATA_FINISH. However if the CF has not yet been processed
then SSL_is_init_finished() will still return 0. Therefore we should still
be able to write early data.
Fixes#3041
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3089)
Fix capitilistion of list items.
Wrap long lines.
Add full stops to the ends of sentances.
Change ciphersuite to cipher suite in all of doc.
[skip ci]
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3082)
We want to make sure that if we if are using SSL_MODE_AUTO_RETRY then
if SSL_read_early_data() hits EndOfEarlyData then it doesn't auto retry
and end up with normal data. The same issue could occur with read_ahead
which is what we use in this test.
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3077)
If read_ahead is set, or SSL_MODE_AUTO_RETRY is used then if
SSL_read_early_data() hits an EndOfEarlyData message then it will
immediately retry automatically, but this time read normal data instead
of early data!
Fixes#3041
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3077)
Variable 'pktype' was set but not used under OPENSSL_NO_GOST. This change
will fix the build warning under [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable].
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2961)
Add OPENSSL_SYS_UEFI to remove unused syslog and uid stuffs for
more clean UEFI build.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2961)
A similar change that probably should have been wrapped into
commit e0926ef49d.
Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3010)
Fix some comments too
[skip ci]
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3069)
