From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel Subject: Re: Emacs core TLS support Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:40:11 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87sk1b9fs4.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <878wc1vfh3.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r5ptpnz2.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <871vhsvkut.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87d41csktn.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87k4v0n0m8.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wrrvfnc4.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87r5i2d00q.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87zkwqijye.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <878w4actmg.fsf@lifelogs.com> <877hju123h.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <8762yklrdk.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wrqzhrjv.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87fwxmihyz.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8762ycfhqo.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87d3sf9soo.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1284565258 10137 80.91.229.12 (15 Sep 2010 15:40:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:40:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: gnutls-devel@gnu.org To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Sep 15 17:40:55 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ovu6P-0002Bu-8P for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:40:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34287 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ovu6O-0006Vi-Ki for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:40:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57152 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ovu64-0006KV-9e for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:40:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ovu5v-0008Sz-Id for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:40:32 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:48782) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ovu5v-0008Sm-8r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:40:23 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ovu5s-0001oh-Mu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:40:20 +0200 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:40:20 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 15 Sep 2010 17:40:20 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 20 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 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" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Umx9ihOwu+jE+/tHHsBA4BBj/5U= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:130214 gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel:4517 Archived-At: On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:13:57 +0200 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: NM> Use/check the gnutls-http-serv script in doc/credentials. It sets up a NM> server with a certificate, ready for testing. If the server doesn't NM> have a certificate it wouldn't be able to fully operate. Thanks. I get a bad TLS packet now, so investigating... NM> Maybe a time limit would be more reasonable, but it depends on the NM> context. Why would you use non-blocking IO in that case? We want to avoid locking up Emacs, which is single-threaded. So I kept the handshake cycle at the ELisp level, which is much harder to lock up (the user can abort a slow operation with `C-g'). Maybe we can use a `timeout' variable the user can set per process. We can assume they know if a server is slow or not. Doing it by retry count is almost definitely wrong. Ted