Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-29 Thread Andres Freund
On 2024-07-26 13:55:29 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Thanks for review, I've applied this backpatched all the way. Thanks for working on this!

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-29 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 5:57 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > I'm sure there are more interactions with OpenSSL, and TLS in general, which > warrants better comments but the attached takes a stab at the two examples in > question here to get started (to avoid perfect get in the way of progress). +1.

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-29 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 26 Jul 2024, at 20:29, Robert Haas wrote: > One of my chronic complaints about comments is > that they should say why we're doing things, not what we're doing. Agreed. > I feel like any > place where we are doing X because of some property of a non-PG code > base with which a particular re

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:23 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > We turn off TLS session tickets for two reasons: a) we don't support TLS > session resumption, and some resumption capable client libraries can > experience > connection failures if they try to use tickets received in the setup (Npgsql

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-26 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 26 Jul 2024, at 16:08, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 8:27 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> Thanks for the report, I'll fix it. Buildfarm animal hamerkop also reminded >> me >> that I had managed to stash the old MSVC buildsystem changes >> (ENOTENOUGHCOFFEE) >> so fixing t

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-26 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 8:27 AM Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > Thanks for the report, I'll fix it. Buildfarm animal hamerkop also reminded > me > that I had managed to stash the old MSVC buildsystem changes > (ENOTENOUGHCOFFEE) > so fixing that at the same time. I was just looking at this commit a

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-26 Thread Marina Polyakova
On 2024-07-26 15:27, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: On 26 Jul 2024, at 14:03, Marina Polyakova wrote: It looks like the recommended way of using autoheader [1] is now broken. The attached patch fixes the master branch for me. Thanks for the report, I'll fix it. Buildfarm animal hamerkop also remi

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-26 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 26 Jul 2024, at 14:03, Marina Polyakova wrote: > On 2024-07-26 14:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> Thanks for review, I've applied this backpatched all the way. > > It looks like the recommended way of using autoheader [1] is now broken. The > attached patch fixes the master branch for me.

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-26 Thread Marina Polyakova
Hello! On 2024-07-26 14:55, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: Thanks for review, I've applied this backpatched all the way. It looks like the recommended way of using autoheader [1] is now broken. The attached patch fixes the master branch for me. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30511.154

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-26 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 24 Jul 2024, at 07:44, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > > On 18/06/2024 16:11, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 17 Jun 2024, at 19:38, Andres Freund wrote: >>> Seems we ought to use SSL_CTX_set_num_tickets() to prevent issuing the >>> useless >>> tickets? >> Agreed, in 1.1.1 and above as the API

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-07-23 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 18/06/2024 16:11, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: On 17 Jun 2024, at 19:38, Andres Freund wrote: Seems we ought to use SSL_CTX_set_num_tickets() to prevent issuing the useless tickets? Agreed, in 1.1.1 and above as the API was only introduced then. LibreSSL added the API in 3.5.4 but only for com

Re: tls 1.3: sending multiple tickets

2024-06-18 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 17 Jun 2024, at 19:38, Andres Freund wrote: > Note the second to last paragraph: Because we use SSL_OP_NO_TICKET we trigger > use of stateful tickets. Which afaict are never going to be useful, because we > don't share the necessary state. Nice catch, I learned something new today. I was u