docs: add citations for alert behavior #4198
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
toidiu
force-pushed
the
ak-alert_exceptions
branch
from
7a60770 to
beb50d6
Compare
goatgoose
reviewed
Sep 12, 2023
lrstewart
reviewed
Sep 12, 2023
goatgoose
approved these changes
Sep 14, 2023
lrstewart
reviewed
Sep 14, 2023
lrstewart
approved these changes
Sep 15, 2023
tls/s2n_alerts.c
Outdated
Comment on lines
231
to
236
| /* | ||
| *= https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc8446#section-6 | ||
| *# Unknown Alert types MUST be treated as error alerts. | ||
| * | ||
| * All other alerts are treated as fatal errors. | ||
| */ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When a comment comes after the compliance comment I read it as a clarification of the compliance comment. Like "Unknown Alert types MUST be treated as error alerts, and all other alerts are treated as fatal errors." Like "other alerts" sounds like it means "other than unknown alert types". If it comes before it's clearer that's not true.
Suggested change
| /* | |
| *= https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc8446#section-6 | |
| *# Unknown Alert types MUST be treated as error alerts. | |
| * | |
| * All other alerts are treated as fatal errors. | |
| */ | |
| /* All other alerts are treated as fatal errors. | |
| * | |
| *= https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc8446#section-6 | |
| *# Unknown Alert types MUST be treated as error alerts. | |
| */ |
toidiu
force-pushed
the
ak-alert_exceptions
branch
from
6be17b7 to
83ec1ef
Compare
toidiu
force-pushed
the
ak-alert_exceptions
branch
from
83ec1ef to
ac02b26
Compare
lrstewart
approved these changes
Sep 15, 2023
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Description of changes:
s2n deviates from the RFC when handling alerts. The RFC calls for sending fatal alerts but s2n-tls defaults to sending close_notify alerts (which are level
warning). This is intentional and and done to avoid potential side-channel attacks.Since this is atypical behavior which often confuses new users, this PR adds duvet citations and expands on the comments to increase discoverability.
I also added a compliance comment for alert receiving behavior.
Is this a refactor change? If so, how have you proved that the intended behavior hasn't changed?
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.