Record size limit extension #338
Conversation
|
This pull request fixes 3 alerts when merging c11fcda into 8243cf3 - view on LGTM.com fixed alerts:
Comment posted by LGTM.com |
tomato42
force-pushed
the
record_size_limit
branch
from
c11fcda
to
56c7c00
Compare
|
This pull request fixes 3 alerts when merging 56c7c00 into 8243cf3 - view on LGTM.com fixed alerts:
Comment posted by LGTM.com |
tomato42
force-pushed
the
record_size_limit
branch
from
56c7c00
to
06cf5df
Compare
tomato42
changed the title
|
This pull request fixes 3 alerts when merging 06cf5df into d61527a - view on LGTM.com fixed alerts:
Comment posted by LGTM.com |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r1, 3 of 3 files at r2, 3 of 3 files at r3, 2 of 2 files at r4, 1 of 1 files at r5, 2 of 2 files at r6, 1 of 1 files at r7, 1 of 1 files at r8, 1 of 1 files at r9, 1 of 1 files at r10.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @tomato42)
tlslite/extensions.py, line 598 at r1 (raw file):
@property def extData(self): """Return raw data encodin of the extension.
s/encodin/encoding/
unit_tests/test_tlslite_handshakesettings.py, line 419 at r4 (raw file):
self.assertIn("record_size_limit", str(e.exception))
I would also add a test for the lower bound (< 64)
add abstract extension for handling extensions that have a single integer value as their payload
make the string representation of few of them more readable in the process
to implement record size limit extension we need to be able to reject records that are too large at the same time, we need to provide updated hints to padding callbacks when the sizes we can send are limited
make the server side of the test and client side of the test have the same name
tomato42
force-pushed
the
record_size_limit
branch
from
06cf5df
to
866017a
Compare
|
@ansasaki updated |
|
This pull request fixes 3 alerts when merging 866017a into d61527a - view on LGTM.com fixed alerts:
Comment posted by LGTM.com |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r+
Reviewed 12 of 12 files at r11, 3 of 3 files at r12, 3 of 3 files at r13, 2 of 2 files at r14, 1 of 1 files at r15, 2 of 2 files at r16, 1 of 1 files at r17, 1 of 1 files at r18, 1 of 1 files at r19, 1 of 1 files at r20.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @tomato42)
|
Thanks for review |
Implement record size limit extension from RFC 8449.
This change is