Hi Levente,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:

Hi Eliot,

Yes, the github version lacks that line. My pull request[1] has this fix, along with a few other fixes and improvments, but Tobias didn't like the image-sided SAN certificate validation scheme, so none of those have been merged. In the meanwhile I've started rewriting a few things, like logging, certificate serialization (so that it's accessible from the image), but I still haven't finished domain name validation.

OK, I'll keep the version of sqUnixOpenSSL.c in Cog unchanged except for the use of SQSSL_VERSION for the version number. Maybe you can integrate with the Cog version? I like using %p instead of %lx, and the use of (long)aSqInt variable is I think unnecessary. Whether sqInt is int or long it=ll get passed as a long to printf, so the noise is unnecessary.

Do you have installation instructions for LibreSSL and make flags for linux64 & linux32?

Levente

[1] https://github.com/itsmeront/squeakssl/pull/3/files

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Eliot Miranda wrote:

Hi Tobias, Levente and Marcel,

...

I'm just integrating your v0.2.0 sources into Cog and I see that in

sqDestroySSL at line 139 in the Cog version of sqUnixOpenSSL.c there's the line

if(ssl->serverName) free(ssl->serverName);

but that's missing from the 0.2.0 version. It looks to me like the Cog version is correct. Is that a storage leak in 0.2.0 or am I misreading the code (sqSetStringPropertySSL), and the line should not be present?

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:

  Dear Smalltalkers

  as a follow up to the SqueakSSL changes sent around yesterday…

  On 21.04.2015, at 16:52, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux@gmx.de> wrote:
  > Dear Smalltalkers
  >
  > Starting with Levente Uzonyi's patches to the Linux version
  > of the SqueakSSL-Plugin, we (Marcel Taeumel and me) have
  > ported this to the OS X and Windows version as well.
  >
  > Find three binaries[1] that can be used instead of
  > the ones found on versions found on SqueakSSL's google code
  > page.
  > […]
  > [1]: http://forum.world.st/file/n4820846/squeakssl.zip


  … I'd like to thank Levente Uzonyi and Ron Teitelbaum for their
  input and providing infrastructure.

  I put together all files and have uploaded them to the new
  (in the googlecode-export sense) SqueakSSL gitHub project:

          https://github.com/itsmeront/squeakssl/

  And tagged a release as v0.2.0 with a Zip of all binaries

(linux32/64,osx,windows)

          https://github.com/itsmeront/squeakssl/releases/tag/v0.2.0

  (scroll to bottom for the binaries zip: squeakssl_v0.2.0.zip)

  I hope this comes in handy for anyone who wants to play around with

that.

  Best
          -Tobias

-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot

Hi all, On 25.07.2015, at 01:10, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Levente,

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote: Hi Eliot,

...

Yes, the github version lacks that line. My pull request[1] has this fix, along with a few other fixes and improvments, but Tobias didn't like the image-sided SAN certificate validation scheme, so none of those have been merged. In the meanwhile I've started rewriting a few things, like logging, certificate serialization (so that it's accessible from the image), but I still haven't finished domain name validation.

OK, I'll keep the version of sqUnixOpenSSL.c in Cog unchanged except for the use of SQSSL_VERSION for the version number.

Reading the Cog sources, sqUnixOpenSSL.c:422 reads case SQSSL_PROP_VERSION: return 1; which should be case SQSSL_PROP_VERSION: return SQSSL_VERSION;

Just to make sure, the version SQSSL_VERSION should be 2.

Maybe you can integrate with the Cog version? I like using %p instead of %lx,

done in c4cad6e81dac6e2475de3426dc613ec50226b230 (sorry, I mixed that with \r\n -> \n conversion, very sorry)

and the use of (long)aSqInt variable is I think unnecessary. Whether sqInt is int or long it=ll get passed as a long to printf, so the noise is unnecessary.

Yet, I'd get warnings: if sqInt is an int, printf("%ld", aSqInt) gives a format waring warning: format '%ld' expects argument of type 'long int', but argument 2 has type 'int' so I would use %d like the Cog version does. Yet, then, if sqInt is a long, printf("%d", aSqInt) gives a format warning again: warning: format '%d' expects argument of type 'int', but argument 2 has type 'long int'

So I'd tend to not change the printf("%ld", (long)aSqInt); as it works correctly and without warnings in both cases.

Do you have installation instructions for LibreSSL and make flags for linux64 & linux32?

I try to put that together tomorrow, I managed to reach 1:30 am again...

Best -Tobias

Hi Levente and all, On 25.07.2015, at 00:46, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:

Hi Eliot,

Yes, the github version lacks that line. My pull request[1] has this fix, along with a few other fixes and improvments, but Tobias didn't like the image-sided SAN certificate validation scheme, so none of those have been merged. In the meanwhile I've started rewriting a few things, like logging, certificate serialization (so that it's accessible from the image), but I still haven't finished domain name validation.

Levente, I have picket the fixes into 300b15b https://github.com/itsmeront/squeakssl/commit/300b15b and ced43a2 https://github.com/itsmeront/squeakssl/commit/ced43a2

Probably It is a good Idea to keep PR #3 open until we have a new one with sAN for everyone \o/

Best regards -Tobias

Levente

[1] https://github.com/itsmeront/squeakssl/pull/3/files

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Eliot Miranda wrote:

...

Hi Tobias, Levente and Marcel, I'm just integrating your v0.2.0 sources into Cog and I see that in sqDestroySSL at line 139 in the Cog version of sqUnixOpenSSL.c there's the line if(ssl->serverName) free(ssl->serverName); but that's missing from the 0.2.0 version. It looks to me like the Cog version is correct. Is that a storage leak in 0.2.0 or am I misreading the code (sqSetStringPropertySSL), and the line should not be present? On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Das.Linux@gmx.de wrote:

 Dear Smalltalkers

 as a follow up to the SqueakSSL changes sent around yesterday…

 On 21.04.2015, at 16:52, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux@gmx.de> wrote:
 > Dear Smalltalkers
 >
 > Starting with Levente Uzonyi's patches to the Linux version
 > of the SqueakSSL-Plugin, we (Marcel Taeumel and me) have
 > ported this to the OS X and Windows version as well.
 >
 > Find three binaries[1] that can be used instead of
 > the ones found on versions found on SqueakSSL's google code
 > page.
 > […]
 > [1]: http://forum.world.st/file/n4820846/squeakssl.zip

 … I'd like to thank Levente Uzonyi and Ron Teitelbaum for their
 input and providing infrastructure.

 I put together all files and have uploaded them to the new
 (in the googlecode-export sense) SqueakSSL gitHub project:

         https://github.com/itsmeront/squeakssl/

 And tagged a release as v0.2.0 with a Zip of all binaries (linux32/64,osx,windows)

         https://github.com/itsmeront/squeakssl/releases/tag/v0.2.0

 (scroll to bottom for the binaries zip: squeakssl_v0.2.0.zip)

 I hope this comes in handy for anyone who wants to play around with that.

 Best
         -Tobias

-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:54:50PM +0200, Tobias Pape wrote:

I now wade through the all yer (what's the explicit plural of your [think y'all]) mails and will reply individually.

The plural of "y'all" is "all y'all".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=all+y%27all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%27all

Thus, "I now wade through all y'all's emails ..."

:-)

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 01:29:29AM +0200, Tobias Pape wrote:

On 30.07.2015, at 01:05, David T. Lewis lewis@mail.msen.com wrote:

...

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 11:54:50PM +0200, Tobias Pape wrote:

...

I now wade through the all yer (what's the explicit plural of your [think y'all]) mails and will reply individually.

The plural of "y'all" is "all y'all".

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=all+y%27all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%27all

Thus, "I now wade through all y'all's emails ..."

ah, probably y'all's would have worked?

Certainly not. We are going for a comfortable down-home style with friendly melodic inflection and a slow welcoming drawl. There is no point in economizing on keystrokes, you want to drag that phrase out, letting it roll slowly off the tongue or keyboard ;-)

Dave