Relax server_name extension validation
#1881
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Benchmark resultsInstruction countsSignificant differencesThere are no significant instruction count differences Other differencesClick to expand
Wall-timeSignificant differencesThere are no significant wall-time differences Other differencesClick to expand
Additional informationCheckout details:
|
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1881 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 95.47% 95.48% +0.01%
==========================================
Files 86 86
Lines 18607 18624 +17
==========================================
+ Hits 17765 17784 +19
+ Misses 842 840 -2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
cpu
approved these changes
Mar 30, 2024
|
Why is the reformatting necessary/not causing issues in CI? |
Unfortunately rustfmt doesn't format the inside of |
djc
reviewed
Apr 1, 2024
rustls/tests/api.rs
Outdated
Comment on lines
964
to
977
| if let MessagePayload::Handshake { parsed, encoded } = &mut msg.payload { | ||
| if let HandshakePayload::ClientHello(ch) = &mut parsed.payload { | ||
| for mut ext in ch.extensions.iter_mut() { | ||
| if let ClientExtension::ServerName(snr) = &mut ext { | ||
| snr.clear(); | ||
| snr.push( | ||
| ServerNameExtensionItem::read_bytes(b"\x00\x00\x071.1.1.1").unwrap(), | ||
| ); | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| *encoded = Payload::new(parsed.get_encoding()); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Consider linearizing this, maybe with let .. else?
ctz
force-pushed
the
jbp-relax-sni-parsing
branch
from
93a0162
to
0d7f1b9
Compare
djc
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2024
cpu
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2024
This works around quality-of-implementation issues in OpenSSL and Apple SecureTransport: they send `server_name` extensions containing IP addresses. RFC6066 specifically disallows that. It is a similar work-around to that adopted by LibreSSL: ignore SNI contents if they can be parsed as an IP address.
ctz
force-pushed
the
jbp-relax-sni-parsing
branch
from
0d7f1b9
to
413dc67
Compare
1 task
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR makes us ignore the
server_nameClientHello extension if it contains a literal IP address. We don't indicate support for theserver_nameextension if we ignored it, and it is not available via any API -- it is as if the client did not send the extension at all. Other illegal names continue to be rejected as before.This is necessary to deal with non-compliant extension data sent by OpenSSL (openssl/openssl#20041) and Apple SecureTransport (#1878).