From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#22789: 25.1.50; In last master build https connections stop working Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 10:23:25 +0200 Message-ID: <83k2lhxria.fsf@gnu.org> References: <864mcyo14y.fsf@Lenovo-PC.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <83k2lugeym.fsf@gnu.org> <871t81wtyt.fsf@gnus.org> <87r3g1veqc.fsf@gnus.org> <86si0euizj.fsf@realize.ch> <871t7xhj7t.fsf@gnus.org> <86oab1vjm9.fsf@realize.ch> <86d1rhpvcq.fsf@realize.ch> <834mctbitq.fsf@gnu.org> <868u25p3m2.fsf@realize.ch> <83io18ahya.fsf@gnu.org> <86y4a3on6f.fsf@realize.ch> <87oaazg7fv.fsf@gnus.org> <86twkro0vr.fsf@realize.ch> <83d1rf8ifj.fsf@gnu.org> <86povfnm9r.fsf@realize.ch> <8337sa9865.fsf@gnu.org> <86bn6ynrbw.fsf@realize.ch> <83vb566v5b.fsf@gnu.org> <83d1razkmq.fsf@gnu.org> <86egbqkwsb.fsf@realize.ch> <86a8mekjrb.fsf@realize.ch> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1457166268 30094 80.91.229.3 (5 Mar 2016 08:24:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 08:24:28 +0000 (UTC) Cc: larsi@gnus.org, j_l_domenech@yahoo.com, 22789@debbugs.gnu.org To: Alain Schneble Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 05 09:24:16 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7VY-0001Qs-2m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:24:16 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45219 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7VT-0000dA-W1 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:24:11 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45082) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7VN-0000ca-S0 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:24:09 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7VK-0005Ge-24 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:24:05 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:37142) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7VJ-0005Ga-VP for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:24:01 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7VJ-0001Vp-Pi for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:24:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Eli Zaretskii Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2016 08:24:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 22789 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 22789-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B22789.14571662245791 (code B ref 22789); Sat, 05 Mar 2016 08:24:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 22789) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Mar 2016 08:23:44 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34269 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7Uz-0001VH-6R for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:23:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53991) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7Uu-0001V2-Nu for 22789@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:23:40 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7Uk-00050X-Lx for 22789@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:23:31 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52408) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7Uk-00050T-IH; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:23:26 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4639 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ac7Uj-0005Sw-EQ; Sat, 05 Mar 2016 03:23:26 -0500 In-reply-to: <86a8mekjrb.fsf@realize.ch> (message from Alain Schneble on Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:36:56 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:114440 Archived-At: > From: Alain Schneble > CC: , , <22789@debbugs.gnu.org> > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 22:36:56 +0100 > > I have the impression that GnuTLS doesn't like it too much if we start > retrying the handshake many times before the socket is connected. At > least on MS-Windows. In nearly all of the cases of loading websites > with around 20 images, I observe arbitrary failures of > gnutls_try_handshake which usually end up with -10 > GNUTLS_E_INVALID_SESSION. I think this warrants a question to GnuTLS developers. We need to understand this before we devise a solution. What bothers me is the "many times" part -- how many is "too much", and why? Do you see any difference in behavior of sys_write during those many attempts as opposed to the first few? Also, what URL do you use for testing this? > I believe this because the following patch solves the issue on my > MS-Windows system: Postponing the handshake until after the socket is > connected. Still, I must be honest: I'm in a kind of a trial-and-error > mode. I do not really understand all the aspects of the current > implementation. Feel free to ask, I think I can answer any question about the Emacs part of this, but probably not about the GnuTLS part -- those we should ask on the GnuTLS mailing list. > Anyway, I think a change in that direction would > probably be a good thing. Do you agree? It eliminates all the > handshake-retries that would otherwise happen before the socket is > connected. Why is it needed only on Windows? Why does it matter what reason causes the failure of a handshake? We need to understand these aspects before we consider the solutions. > BTW, `libgnutls-version' evaluates to 30408 on my MS-Windows. It's 30311 here, but I'm not sure this is a factor. We are talking about basic functionality here. Thanks.