GNU bug report logs - #40665
28.0.50; tls hang on local ssl

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Derek Zhou <derek <at> 3qin.us>
To: Robert Pluim <rpluim <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 40665 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#40665: 28.0.50; tls hang on local ssl
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:16:12 +0000 (UTC)

Robert Pluim writes:

>     Derek> I don't quite understand the wait_proc business. The idea of the patch
>     Derek> is to detect that out of all the fds that are going to be selected, how
>     Derek> many are gnutls managed and are ready from the gnutls buffer? If the
>     Derek> answer is positive, we skip the select and pretend the select return
>     Derek> those fds only. I think this is safe; because it is one of the possible
>     Derek> and legal return of the select, wait_proc or not.
>
> The reason for checking wait_proc is to allow 'accept-process-output'
> to specify that emacs should return only when there is data for that
> specific process, with your patch it can return if there is any data
> in the TLS buffers for any connection, but none for wait_proc. That
> would make 'accept-process-output' return earlier than expected, or
> even return for the case where the timeout is infinite.
>
> A quick survey of the emacs sources shows almost every call to
> 'accept-process-output' passes in wait_proc, so I think that your
> change as it stands is too risky. With a check for wait_proc it might
> be OK.
>
My counter argument is if we really only care about some of the the fds
but not all the fds, the proper way is to let select know by passing in
the proper narrower set of fds, maybe the code is already this way? It is very
complicated so I am not sure. I am checking only those fds that are both
1, gnutls managed, and the 2 set in the input for readfds for the
select, so I believe it is the right thing.

>     Derek> Another way is to still do a zero timeout select, and merge the gnutls
>     Derek> ready set with the select ready set. It is more intrusive but probably
>     Derek> closer to the original intent of the code. I can write the path that way
>     Derek> if you want.
>
> I donʼt think we always do a zero timeout select. This sounds even
> riskier.

I am proposing doing a zero timeout select ONLY if the gnutls buffer
check already flags some of the channels. This way we can also select those
FDs that are not gnutls managed, but already ready to read at the same
moment. It is closer to the origin intention of the select, I
believe. If the gnutls buffer check does not flag anything of cause we do
the select with timeout exactly as before. My current patch may leave
out some ready fd unchecked until the next round.

Derek

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.