Prepare 0.23.24 #2383
Merged
Prepare 0.23.24 #2383
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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 #2383 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.16% 96.16%
=======================================
Files 94 94
Lines 22814 22814
=======================================
Hits 21939 21939
Misses 875 875 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
djc
approved these changes
Mar 15, 2025
cpu
approved these changes
Mar 16, 2025
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. I went through the commits since .23 and didn't spot anything that felt relevant that wasn't covered.
Users handling CertificateError variants individually should note the new variants, such as CertificateError::NotValidForNameContext (compare CertificateError::NotValidForName).
Is there more to say about the purpose of CertificateError::NotValidForName now that the Context variant exists? Is it retained for semver purposes only or can it still be emitted? It looks to me like the former but I only did a quick scan.
Behavior change: Clients no longer offer resumption between different ClientConfigs that share a resumption store ....
WDYT about using this as an opportunity to make a small note about how this should also be considered for reusing server configs with some of the text from #2381 ?
21 tasks
Added a note -- I think the answer is that all the previous variants remain both for semver reasons but also for non-webpki verifiers (eg, platform-verifier) which I expect will continue to use them.
Added a reference for this. |
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.
ref rustls/rustls-platform-verifier#163
Proposed release notes:
New feature: More detailed and helpful error reporting for common certificate errors, such as name mismatches and certificate expiry. Users who
std::fmt::Displaythe rustlsErrortype will take advantage of this automatically. Users handlingCertificateErrorvariants individually should note the new variants, such asCertificateError::NotValidForNameContext(compareCertificateError::NotValidForName).The old
CertificateErrorvariants (such asNotValidForName,Expired, etc.) remain usable, and may be produced by both the default and third-party certificate verification traits.New feature: Allow KTLS handoff for unbuffered API users, by introducing
dangerous_extract_secrets(). Thanks to @edef1c.Bug fix: Unbuffered connections now consume data during the
next_record()function, rather than production of the state. This fixes unbuffered: No way to refuse a ReadTraffic if there is no space #2031.Bug fix: Build speed improvement for aws-lc-rs
fipsusers.Behavior change: Clients no longer offer resumption between different
ClientConfigs that share a resumption store but do not share server certificate verification and client authentication credentials. If you share a resumption store between multipleClientConfigs, please ensure their server certificate verification and client authentication credentials are also shared. Please read the new documentation on theClientConfig::resumptionitem for details.Additionally, if you share a resumption store or ticketer between multiple
ServerConfigs, please see the new documentation onServerConfigabout this.