osdir.com


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [VOTE] Release httpd-2.4.36



> On Oct 15, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 15.10.2018 um 16:11 schrieb Jim Jagielski <jim@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> 
>> It's up to the RM on whether or not to release... one can't veto a release and a -1 is not a veto.
> 
> Huh? I was referring to "TLS 1.3 support isn't quite yet tested enough to warrant a public release". I wanted to point out that without attempting a public release, we may not have found this bug for months

Agreed.

> . I am -1 on 2.4.36 as well, in case that was not clear. Don't know how this "veto" came into this...

It wasn't directed at anyone, just a general statement... 

> 
> -Stefan
> 
>>> On Oct 15, 2018, at 10:07 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Am 15.10.2018 um 15:58 schrieb Jim Jagielski <jim@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> 
>>>> Considering all this, I am changing my vote from a +1 to a -1. I was not able to trigger this error, but this shows, at least IMO, that TLS 1.3 support isn't quite yet tested enough to warrant a public release, unless we are super clear that it is "experimental" or "early access"...
>>> 
>>> I do not see it this black/white way. 
>>> 
>>> We have found no regression with any SSL != OpenSSL 1.1.1. 
>>> We have not even found a bug with TLSv1.3 as such. What we have found is a behaviour change in OpenSSL where our code relied on either changed or not well documented behaviour. 
>>> 
>>> We do not want to ship a version of httpd which has severe interop problems with the released openssl 1.1.1. 
>>> HOWEVER: it is unclear, if this will not also trigger in some scenario when one links 2.4.35 with OpenSSL 1.1.1.
>>> 
>>> I am all in favor of pushing a 2.4.37 immediately after this bug is fixed. We will not solve any remaining problems by letting it stew in the repository. 
>>> 
>>> -Stefan
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Oct 15, 2018, at 4:06 AM, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 14.10.2018 um 23:46 schrieb Daniel Ruggeri <druggeri@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi, Helmut;
>>>>>> Note that the vote may run longer than 72 hours as 72 is the minimum. As it stands now, we have more than 3 binding +1 votes, but I am waiting for closure on the conversation on-list about the tests with reported H2/TLS 1.3 failures. Since this is one of the primary features of this release, I want to be sure the topic gets due attention.
>>>>> 
>>>>> See my mail on the other thread. It seems that h2 traffic triggers a call sequence that exposes a change in OpenSSL behaviour of SSL_read() between 1.1.0 and 1.1.1. It looks as if mod_ssl interpreted the return codes of SSL_read() in a way that no longer works and that we need to change mod_ssl handling here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Waiting on confirmation  or rebuttal of my analysis on the other thread.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Stefan
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Daniel Ruggeri
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On October 14, 2018 4:44:04 PM CDT, "Helmut K. C. Tessarek" <tessarek@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-10-10 15:18, Daniel Ruggeri wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, all;
>>>>>> Please find below the proposed release tarball and signatures:
>>>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/httpd/
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like to call a VOTE over the next few days to release this
>>>>>> candidate tarball as 2.4.36:
>>>>>> [ ] +1: It's not just good, it's good enough!
>>>>>> [ ] +0: Let's have a talk.
>>>>>> [ ] -1: There's trouble in paradise. Here's what's wrong.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The computed digests of the tarball up for vote are:
>>>>>> sha1: e40e7a879b84df860215b8a80f2a535534a1c4b4 *httpd-2.4.36.tar.gz
>>>>>> sha256: ef788fb7c814acb2506a8b758a1a3f91f368f97bd4e6db16e98001f468e8e288
>>>>>> *httpd-2.4.36.tar.gz
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 72h have passed, so what is the outcome of the vote?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>