From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10904: 24.0.93; Infinite loop in GnuTLS code during Gnus nnimap-initiated SSL handshake Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:08 -0500 Organization: =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=A2=D0=B5=D0=BE=D0=B4=D0=BE=D1=80_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=97=D0=BB=D0=B0=D1=82=D0=B0=D0=BD=D0=BE=D0=B2?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <878uif8p0f.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87haxk3dce.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87hax6wakn.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87sjgdoi43.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8762d7kdk6.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1418227824 25184 80.91.229.3 (10 Dec 2014 16:10:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Thomas Fitzsimmons , 10904@debbugs.gnu.org To: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 10 17:10:19 2014 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 1XyjqD-0000Ta-MK for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 17:10:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46474 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XyjqD-0001s4-3V for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49436) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xyjq4-0001jB-1N for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:13 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xyjpy-0006Gm-CH for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:07 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:35361) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xyjpy-0006GT-9n for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Xyjpy-0004ux-0e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:10:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Ted Zlatanov Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:10:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10904 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10904-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10904.141822776618826 (code B ref 10904); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:10:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10904) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Dec 2014 16:09:26 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60792 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XyjpK-0004tT-KH for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:09:26 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-qa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.216.54]:43558) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1XyjpF-0004tB-EK for 10904@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:09:21 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id i13so2207092qae.13 for <10904@debbugs.gnu.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:09:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lifelogs.com; s=google; h=from:to:cc:subject:organization:references:mail-copies-to :gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type; bh=Q+vawRdif3kYEmX/dVoEpZ9yKcYULKNH9A3EJyHVk80=; b=iIsuF70oZ3C+wm6svkuDON8szZBIFLclrq4vvvlUVOaX6PLlH/kmrVe8vIBXCwqZRG 1mxNXwuJ0dp66ZXAqODtD7P1JEntRbR0dSudciSM7DDniZmo59tXgyV9G20GZ7qg8i66 ykaswpTwwhDKuZ+G3xEQr/7QrygG1rL7N6HDQ= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:organization:references :mail-copies-to:gmane-reply-to-list:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type; bh=Q+vawRdif3kYEmX/dVoEpZ9yKcYULKNH9A3EJyHVk80=; b=MH/G2WfcykomS2aABGFM4WufMq5F9BZ56edFL6WCG2brlcZ2Mqucib7dmT8kf/RQ/o RcJ7ZZ/q5sy5JJC9wMU21pSvNqGotjKmiGgopAJuUUoN/DcnENeW3z/KLG2/yGXOG4JP AuhgeNA647F6yiSd5183eZxZ78jg/omCdPNtlBSi5AJewtCb0THLB6RBt08LlSUxGk9t IcsrIpX/0rHgFn8aRZfzVbfirm0SNyZHj62LllDPQdjeeJHNVqhvwabPBPXros4JzHql bYwCBc81+fGXAozGy+8OA9OHTOsdFipT28ACrO35URLa7pey5hDUi72tcZ5H2ogPGcvG DddQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlHL9nO/l0W8J2rfqxvTEoxXFL+VC2hv9Gh2JPb/x/FIWnb4bxvcmD+TlNYvsEK8rdOg3wF X-Received: by 10.224.28.135 with SMTP id m7mr9640698qac.7.1418227755849; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:09:15 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from flea (c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [98.229.61.72]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i32sm4579701qgf.12.2014.12.10.08.09.14 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Dec 2014 08:09:15 -0800 (PST) X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never Gmane-Reply-To-List: yes In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:06:21 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 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:97137 Archived-At: On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:06:21 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> I plan to follow Nikos' advice here: >> >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel/6017 >> >> so we'll drop from NORMAL to PERFORMANCE, basically, if the user >> approves. After the 24.1 release I'll look at this. LMI> Would it make sense to just default to PERFORMANCE now that we have the LMI> NSM? The default priority string should correspond to the medium `network-security-level' so yes, I think so. But I really think those two should be bound closer together, as I mentioned. Ted