There should be no data in the Handshake buffer on encryption state
changes (including implicit 1.3 transitions). Checking that also blocks
all Handshake messages fragmented across CCS.
BoGo: PartialClientFinishedWithClientHello
Phase should only be accessed under in.Mutex. Handshake and all Read
operations obtain that lock. However, many functions checking for
handshakeRunning only obtain handshakeMutex: reintroduce
handshakeCompleted for them. ConnectionState and Close check for
handshakeConfirmed, introduce an atomic flag for them.
There is no reason a server can't just send a CloseNotify in its first
flight, and then close the connection without reading the 0-RTT data.
Also, it's not expected of Close to block on reading, and interlocking
with a Read can cause a deadlock.
Fixes NCC-2016-001
I opted for adding a separate TLS13CipherSuites field to the Config
because library users that did not set Config.MaxVersion are
supposed to get TLS 1.3 support automatically, like it has been for
HTTP/2, but having set CipherSuites would effectively disable it.
Updates #9671
Change-Id: I26a2776b68374d6f5ee45629da09f9494fe723ad
Opening the 1.3 dances with the record layer because it has been the
most stable through the drafts, has the least dependencies, and has been
tricky in my experience.
Note that the record layer version check is entirely removed according
to https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18#appendix-C.2.
A test that happened to hit that check (but was not made to test for it)
has changed to the next error in the stack.
There are no 1.3 tests at the moment, and I suspect they will all have to
wait for the patch cycle to reach interoperability.
Using > / <= VersionTLS13 for all conditionals to transparently support
draft versions and hypotetical future versions.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18#section-5.
Updates #9671
Change-Id: I97f0a59439728f194a1c50b48cff041469a0f00b
Detected by BoGo test FragmentAcrossChangeCipherSpec-Server-Packed.
Change-Id: I9a76697b9cdeb010642766041971de5c7e533481
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/48811
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
Run-TryBot: Adam Langley <agl@golang.org>
