-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 31.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Only do seclevel workaround if seclevel greater than 1 #131736
Comments
picnixz
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Apr 1, 2025
…ecurity levels greater than 1 (#131739)
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this issue
Apr 1, 2025
… for security levels greater than 1 (pythonGH-131739) (cherry picked from commit 3b3720f) Co-authored-by: Will Childs-Klein <[email protected]>
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this issue
Apr 1, 2025
… for security levels greater than 1 (pythonGH-131739) (cherry picked from commit 3b3720f) Co-authored-by: Will Childs-Klein <[email protected]>
Thanks for the PR and fix! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Feature or enhancement
Proposal:
We propose checking libssl's current security level before performing our ubuntu workaround in
test_ssl.py
, and skipping the workaround if it's unnecessary.Due to backwards compatibility concerns around parsing short RSA keys, AWS-LC only supports
SECLEVEL=0
.Has this already been discussed elsewhere?
I have already discussed this feature proposal on Discourse
Links to previous discussion of this feature:
This issue is very similar to a series of other test modifications discussed in
https://discuss.python.org/t/support-building-ssl-and-hashlib-modules-against-aws-lc/44505/13
Linked PRs
security_level
workaround intest_ssl
for security levels greater than 1 #131739security_level
workaround intest_ssl
for security levels greater than 1 (GH-131739) #131966security_level
workaround intest_ssl
for security levels greater than 1 (GH-131739) #131967The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: