Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77574 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 36863 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2014 09:41:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 24 Sep 2014 09:41:28 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=tyra3l@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=tyra3l@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.52 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: tyra3l@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.192.52 mail-qg0-f52.google.com Received: from [209.85.192.52] ([209.85.192.52:55486] helo=mail-qg0-f52.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 06/20-35478-6C192245 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 05:41:27 -0400 Received: by mail-qg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id j5so4886740qga.39 for ; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:41:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=XvXZ9jQg2Kn5hcvgykzDHq5dn1cTn86amMjKRVPi68Q=; b=yN/U61Kg3UmQgDY3Pz59uIDdOrPE14uZFlZe5SCQ1s6iYTP6TA/J3z6hWnKe+THp8c S2NdFZJcFLCEyfXcZWtpbF08gIhjG0kANVp4iBvohiccd0BKweHIEydszRDc7G0VHc/u P1CVm9UUdIPoIzENXqRuQTIGr2SJ2F/Dn6we735t1qZdZcpvU8+jxnKMB36c0P3A1rme 2v+l4YD7gcLDxn71PRFYkak/MWTa1gLirY1t5qeRTB63LGKBd4uR3Q/POUevHROlXRHO 2Xg4xkMH+ONIeZiF6uB/K7aOeGh+vU8v34GPvSJesyure5Q+YPKsCzuqwwN22xuVbCgl cUVg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.191.2 with SMTP id dk2mr7358890qcb.8.1411551683649; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:41:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.140.91.14 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 02:41:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:41:23 +0200 Message-ID: To: Julien Pauli Cc: Daniel Lowrey , "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1133979eafa9d70503cc7c03 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: Re: OpenSSL bug in 5.4.33 and 5.5.17 From: tyra3l@gmail.com (Ferenc Kovacs) --001a1133979eafa9d70503cc7c03 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Julien Pauli wrote: > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Daniel Lowrey > wrote: > >> > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> That's a bad thing we need to fix ASAP. > >> >> > >> >> I think for 5.6.1 we'll revert it , if not, we'll need an RC2, whic= h > >> >> is something we usually don't do (but as this could involve securit= y, > >> >> we may do it). > >> >> The fix can be merged to 5.5.18RC1, next week, to have an RC cycle = if > >> >> not part of a 5.6.1RC2 (tag is tomorrow) > >> >> > >> >> 5.6 and 5.5 actually overlap in the release weeks. 5.6 is planned o= n > >> >> odd weeks whereas 5.5 is on even weeks. > >> >> > >> >> Waiting for Ferenc's advice anyway. > >> >> > >> >> Julien.P > >> > > >> >I have no issues with reverting at this point as that's the best rout= e > to > >> >get stable releases back on track. I thought I had fixed some really > old > >> >bugs with those commits but the medicine turned out to be worse than > the > >> >disease. My apologies again for letting those problems sneak into > >> > releases > >> >:/ > >> > >> I've got the necessary fixes lined up at this point, I just need to kn= ow > >> how you guys would prefer to proceed on this. > >> > >> I can commit the relevant changes to 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 and double-check > >> with > >> RMs to ensure they make it into this next set of releases or we can > revert > >> the previous commits and forget about the bug fixes altogether. > >> > >> Just let me know which you prefer. Thanks. > > > > > > hi, > > > > I would prefer reverting the regression from 5.6.1, and I would be fine > > having the proper fix later on, but I think it would be nice if we coul= d > > keep that off from the stable branches until we can validate (feedback > from > > the Horde guys would be nice but it would really help a ton if we could > have > > tests for both the original problem this was intended to fix and for th= e > > regression introduced while doing so) that the patch is now proper (may= be > > keeping it in a pull request in the meanwhile). > > What do you think? > > For me its all right and safe. > > Next week we'll have 5.5.18RC1, which could contain the fix if it's > been validated and want to go for an RC stage. > > Julien.P > FYI: I've tagged 5.6.1 and I had to revert the following commits for this: 372844918a318ad712e16f9ec636682424a65403 f86b2193a483f56b0bd056570a0cdb57ebe66e2f 30a73658c63a91c413305a4c4d49882fda4dab3e 84a4041ba47e92e7a0ba03938d0ebf88b5fcf6cf 98e67add15a6b889efe152c23ed15a61f022a63a 98e67add15a6b889efe152c23ed15a61f022a63a and 30a73658c63a91c413305a4c4d49882fda4dab3e were merge commits with conflict resolution Could you review that the current status of ext/openssl/xp_ssl.c is proper in the tag? Thanks! --=20 Ferenc Kov=C3=A1cs @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu --001a1133979eafa9d70503cc7c03--