[#61171] Re: [ruby-changes:33145] normal:r45224 (trunk): gc.c: fix build for testing w/o RGenGC — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
(2014/03/01 16:15), normal wrote:
[#61243] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9425] [PATCH] st: use power-of-two sizes to avoid slow modulo ops — normalperson@...
Issue #9425 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#61359] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9609] [Open] [PATCH] vm_eval.c: fix misplaced RB_GC_GUARDs — normalperson@...
Issue #9609 has been reported by Eric Wong.
(2014/03/07 19:09), normalperson@yhbt.net wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61424] [REJECT?] xmalloc/xfree: reduce atomic ops w/ thread-locals — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I'm unsure about this. I _hate_ the extra branches this adds;
Hi Eric,
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
(2014/03/14 2:12), Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[#61452] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [Open] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#61496] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9638] [Open] [PATCH] limit IDs to 32-bits on 64-bit systems — normalperson@...
Issue #9638 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#61568] hash function for global method cache — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I came upon this because I noticed existing st numtable worked poorly
(2014/03/18 8:03), Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
what's the profit from using binary tree in place of hash?
Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com> wrote:
[#61687] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9606] Ocassional SIGSEGV inTestException#test_machine_stackoverflow on OpenBSD — normalperson@...
Issue #9606 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#61760] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9632] [PATCH 0/2] speedup IO#close with linked-list from ccan — normalperson@...
Issue #9632 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[ruby-core:61569] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9613] Warn about unsafe ossl ciphers
Issue #9613 has been updated by Christian Hofstaedtler. Single datapoint: 45274 will likely end up in Debian jessie's ruby 2.1, and by extension probably in Ubuntu's ruby 2.1. ---------------------------------------- Bug #9613: Warn about unsafe ossl ciphers https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9613#change-45851 * Author: Zachary Scott * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: * Category: ext/openssl * Target version: current: 2.2.0 * ruby -v: 2.2.0dev * Backport: 1.9.3: UNKNOWN, 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN ---------------------------------------- As of r45274, we now have sane whitelist of available OpenSSL ciphers. However, this patch breaks backwards compatibility for any apps that use any ciphers not whitelisted. ## Solution * Implement a new class: OpenSSL::SSL::Ciphers * This class defines a constant for every whitelisted cipher used by DEFAULT_PARAMS[:ciphers] * Any constant not found within this class should raise a warning and report to the user * Add an OpenSSL::SSL::Configuration class * Designed to default to no compression, and no sslv2/v3 * Used by DEFAULT_PARAMS[:options] * This class may contain helper methods such as: #compression_enabled? ## Pros * We don't break anything, without warning users first * Maintaining future whitelist ciphers is easier * Future unsupported/blacklist ciphers are already dismissed * Users are able to extend cipher lists to support their needs (by adding a constant to OpenSSL::SSL::Ciphers) ## Concerns I have discussed this with Martin, and we'd like to open up this discussion for feedback. We're particularly concerned about backporting r45274 as it breaks compatibility. We should also consider: * Do we backport both patches or just the warning? * Should we bother backporting deprecation warnings? * Since r45274 is not a security fix, do we consider this a bug? * Rails only introduces deprecation notices in new minor releases (ie: Ruby-2.2.0) * r45274 is a major change that could break existing apps, even considering security -- httsp://bugs.ruby-lang.org/