From: "Rémi Bernon" <rbernon@codeweavers.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] secur32: Perform TLS handshake even if input is empty.
Message-Id: <6bc572ee-e05c-d6ee-6c8e-c241e129de8c@codeweavers.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:23:52 +0100
In-Reply-To: <522e1621781981d6b23f69be961ecf728d1c99a8.camel@codeweavers.com>
References: <20210215114723.3898056-4-rbernon@codeweavers.com> <E1lBcu3-0001vf-IF@winehq.org> <78456e41-4993-2d6a-6151-1d78bba111ff@codeweavers.com> <522e1621781981d6b23f69be961ecf728d1c99a8.camel@codeweavers.com>

On 2/15/21 3:32 PM, Hans Leidekker wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-02-15 at 13:26 +0100, Rémi Bernon wrote:
>> On 2/15/21 1:22 PM, Marvin wrote:
>>> === debiant2 (64 bit WoW report) ===
>>>
>>> secur32:
>>> schannel.c:818: Test failed: Output buffer size changed.
>>> schannel.c:833: Test failed: Output buffer size changed.
>>> schannel.c:842: Test failed: Output buffer size changed.
>>> schannel: Timeout
>>>
>>
>> I guess that speaks for itself, but I'm still interested to discuss how
>> to properly test the re-handshake, if there are ways.
> 
> We could set up a test on test.winehq.org. Apache docs suggest that
> changing SSL parameters trigger a re-handshake. Maybe something like
> this will work:
> 
> <Directory clientcert>
> SSLVerifyClient require
> </Directory>
> 
> 

I don't really know much about Apache configuration, but isn't this 
going to require a client certificate, which we don't have? Is it going 
to fail but after the re-handshake (which would allow us to test it)?
-- 
Rémi Bernon <rbernon@codeweavers.com>