Afaik, all existing OpenSSL versions can't be safely initialized in the way you do it. I already explained why -- there is no point going through it again.
The only proper way dealing with this (that I know) -- declare that your library uses OpenSSL and leave end user to initialize it. If your user is snother library writer -- he'll have to do the same. Only "top-lvl user" will know for sure when and how to properly in it those libs. Same for libcurl/etc. I think the proper term for this is "global state poisoning" -- basically because you use OpenSSL and it has global state that needs to initialized -- it poisons you and now you have global state that needs to be initialized. And there is no way to auto-initialize it in such way that it works in every circumstance. I know I can contribute, but my point that to solve it properly you'll have to break exiting clients. I doubt you'll accept PR like that. On May 3, 2018 9:41 PM, "jiangtao via grpc.io" <grpc-io@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Michael, > > I think we are trying stop supporting OpenSSL without ALPN (i.e., OpenSSL > 1.0.1 and below) soon in gRPC. > > If you feel this still needs to be addressed. Welcome to communicate with > Nicolas, and if he agrees, feel free to contribute to gRPC code with your > proposed solution. > > On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 6:30:30 PM UTC-7, CM wrote: >> >> Yeah, "un-initialization functions" meant to mean "any of initialization >> or uninitialization functions". I didn't communicate my point correctly. >> >> >> > As grpc does not do any shutdown on OpenSSL, I can ensure that my >> application is only cleaning it up after I am done with grpc. >> >> ... which is going to work swell if someone loads/unloads grpc >> dynamically ;-) >> >> >> > As for your latest remark that SSL-library-init functions are not >> threadsafe, they could also be wrapped inside the callback check. >> >> Oh! Good thing you reminded me -- "callback check" in this pull request >> isn't threadsafe. :-) I.e. this: >> >> if (!CRYPTO_get_locking_callback()) { >> int num_locks = CRYPTO_num_locks(); >> GPR_ASSERT(num_locks > 0); >> g_openssl_mutexes = static_cast<gpr_mu*>( >> gpr_malloc(static_cast<size_t>(num_locks) * sizeof(gpr_mu))); >> for (int i = 0; i < num_locks; i++) { >> gpr_mu_init(&g_openssl_mutexes[i]); >> } >> CRYPTO_set_locking_callback(openssl_locking_cb); >> CRYPTO_set_id_callback(openssl_thread_id_cb); >> } else { >> gpr_log(GPR_INFO, "OpenSSL callback has already been set."); >> } >> >> >> is broken. Does it need an explanation or it is obvious? >> >> >> > I have not done any research on them being not thread-safe so if you >> have reference literature on it, that'd be good to see. >> >> Library init functions typically aren't threadsafe. >> >> >> > Still as the calls are idempotent, this thread synchronization is an >> easy problem. >> >> If you know every detail of every call -- yes, you can add >> synchronization in all spots. Problem is that when you use 3rdparty lib >> that uses grpc under the cover (or it uses other lib that uses grpc) -- I >> bet $50 it is not going to be done correctly. >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:17 PM, Arpit Baldeva <abal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Your original remark said - there is still a race here with other >>> thread(s) un-initializing OpenSSL (*talking about un-initializing*) >>> Now you are saying - that is not what I meant by my remark -- >>> SSL-library-init functions are not threadsafe, afaik. (*talking about >>> initializing*) >>> >>> My response was for the former. The original problem I had was that grpc >>> would internally trounce my settings and I can not tell everyone else in my >>> setting to wait for some unknown time when grpc would trounce those >>> settings in some internal thread that I don't know about and only use >>> OpenSSL after it. Now, it's an easier problem that I just need to make sure >>> the OpenSSL is ready to use before I call grpc_init. As grpc does not do >>> any shutdown on OpenSSL, I can ensure that my application is only cleaning >>> it up after I am done with grpc. >>> >>> As for your latest remark that SSL-library-init functions are not >>> threadsafe, they could also be wrapped inside the callback check. I have >>> not done any research on them being not thread-safe so if you have >>> reference literature on it, that'd be good to see. Still as the calls are >>> idempotent, this thread synchronization is an easy problem. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Michael Kilburn <crusad...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Well, there is no official way to fully uninitialize OpenSSL. Also, >>>> that is not what I meant by my remark -- SSL-library-init functions are not >>>> threadsafe, afaik. I.e. calling them from different threads at the same >>>> time is unsafe. And it is not easy to guarantee that this won't happen if >>>> grpc is doing it under the covers. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Arpit Baldeva <abal...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Grpc does not un-initialize OpenSSL. If you have other thread that is >>>>> un-initing it, you can easily coordinate that after grpc shutdown. The >>>>> patch is only ensuring that it is not overriding application settings. >>>>> While the cleanest solution is to provide an explicit flag, the solution >>>>> in >>>>> the patch works as long as the user knows what’s happening behind the >>>>> scenes. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 23, 2018, at 8:07 PM, 'Jiangtao Li' via grpc.io < >>>>> grp...@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Initializing OpenSSL outside gRPC is not practical in many situations. >>>>> Our internal expert says the race condition only exist for OpenSSL 1.0.x >>>>> and 0.9.x. We are on best effort to support older versions of OpenSSL, >>>>> while our main support is BoringSSL and OpenSSL 1.1. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Jiangtao >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:30 PM CM <crusad...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This change didn't really fix the problem -- there is still a race >>>>>> here with other thread(s) un-initializing OpenSSL. Old problem, the only >>>>>> correct solution is to leave OpenSSL initialization to user. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 4:18:42 PM UTC-5, Jiangtao Li wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good to know. Once the patch approved and merged. It will be in next >>>>>>> grpc release. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Jiangtao >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 2:10 PM Arpit Baldeva <abal...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the patch. It did fix the issue! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What release version are you targeting? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 2:12:05 PM UTC-7, jian...@google.com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Arpit, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could you please patch https://github.com/grpc/grpc/pull/15143 >>>>>>>>> and see whether it solves your problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 9:30:34 AM UTC-7, Arpit Baldeva wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I am on 1.0.2k so yeah it is a problem on that version. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think the simplest fix is what I mentioned in last email >>>>>>>>>> - grpc init_openssl implementation can check if locking callback >>>>>>>>>> already >>>>>>>>>> exists by calling CRYPTO_get_id_callback and if so, skip putting >>>>>>>>>> it's own >>>>>>>>>> locks. The application can ensure that it has the right >>>>>>>>>> initialization in >>>>>>>>>> place before doing anything with grpc. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 10:58:21 AM UTC-7, Jiangtao Li >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Which version of OpenSSL are you using? Or you are using >>>>>>>>>>> BoringSSL? OpenSSL 1.1 or BoringSSL does not have such problems on >>>>>>>>>>> OpenSSL >>>>>>>>>>> init. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For OpenSSL 1.0x, it is a valid concern. Let me check what is >>>>>>>>>>> the best way to resolve this issue (pass a compiler flag, >>>>>>>>>>> environment >>>>>>>>>>> variable, or some API changes). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>> Jiangtao >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 7:34 PM Arpit Baldeva <abal...@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To explain further, a library such as grpc intializing global >>>>>>>>>>>> settings of another library is not a good practice. Looking at >>>>>>>>>>>> libcurl ( >>>>>>>>>>>> https://curl.haxx.se/libcurl/c/curl_global_init.html) , >>>>>>>>>>>> PostgreSQL(https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/libpq- >>>>>>>>>>>> ssl.html ) (and may be there are more libraries), these take >>>>>>>>>>>> an initialization flag that to decide whether OpenSSL should be >>>>>>>>>>>> initialized >>>>>>>>>>>> internally or not. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, looking at https://stackoverflow.com/ques >>>>>>>>>>>> tions/21874152/openssl-thread-safety-callback-function- >>>>>>>>>>>> registration-with-both-direct-call-and-i , the simplest >>>>>>>>>>>> solution here is for grpc to check if locking callback already >>>>>>>>>>>> exists by >>>>>>>>>>>> calling CRYPTO_get_id_callback and if so, skip putting it's own >>>>>>>>>>>> locks. Rest >>>>>>>>>>>> of the init functions in OpenSSL are idempotent and hence can be >>>>>>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple times. And looks like grpc is not cleaning up OpenSSL so >>>>>>>>>>>> we are >>>>>>>>>>>> fine there too (looks like clean up calls are getting no-op in >>>>>>>>>>>> future - >>>>>>>>>>>> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35802643/will-ignoring- >>>>>>>>>>>> to-call-openssl-evp-cleanup-result-in-serious-flaws-or- >>>>>>>>>>>> memory-leak ) . >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 4:09:01 PM UTC-7, Arpit Baldeva >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, I am not sure why you are focusing on the race >>>>>>>>>>>>> condition. Race condition is not the problem. Fact that grpc >>>>>>>>>>>>> decides to >>>>>>>>>>>>> put some global callbacks on the OpenSSL is the problem. It >>>>>>>>>>>>> should not do >>>>>>>>>>>>> that. Why can't this be made optional via a compile time flag or >>>>>>>>>>>>> some run >>>>>>>>>>>>> time initialization parameter? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 3:52:47 PM UTC-7, Jiangtao Li >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't see a convenient way to do in gRPC. SSL init can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called multiple times, as long as it is not called in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems that the best way to address is adding mutex in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> application to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make sure SSL init is not called simultaneously. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:28 PM Arpit Baldeva < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> abal...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, there are two parallel threads that do this at the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. What I was noticing is that at application shutdown, my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complained about the lock I handed over to OpenSSL not being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unlocked. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking into it, I realized that during initialization, OpenSSL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grabbed a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lock from my callback, during this time, grpc replaced the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locks and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSSL unlock call got re-routed. But again, this is just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side effect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The real problem is simply the fact that grpc is setting some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> global >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> callbacks on OpenSSL that should best be left to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that this is probably done to make it easy for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grpc >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrators but there are applications such as mine where there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> usage of OpenSSL and I'd rather manage the global settings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> myself than rely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on grpc to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 3:05:05 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jian...@google.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you describe the race condition in details? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In gRPC ssl_transport_security, init_openssl() is only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called when ssl transport security is needed. In your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application, you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling SSL_library_init() in a separate thread in parallel? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 2:46:28 PM UTC-7, Arpit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baldeva wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am using grpc-1.10.0 and it has that code. Looking at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latest master, it still has that code - >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/grpc/grpc/blob/master/src/core/tsi/ssl_ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transport_security.cc - see the init_openssl function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is not just that grpc_init initialized the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSSL. The problem is really that grpc is initializing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSSL internally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and it can trounce the application settings. Grpc should let >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choose if they want it to handle the OpenSSL initialization >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 at 12:25:58 PM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jian...@google.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Arpit, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grpc_init initializes OpenSSL for a short period (~2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> days) and the code was later removed. Do you still the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem, if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fetch the latest master? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 16, 2018 at 2:22:32 PM UTC-7, Arpit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Baldeva wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I recently pinned down a sporadic race condition in my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> application due to grpc intializing OpenSSL internally. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OpenSSL has some global callbacks that grpc is trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initialize on it's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own without the authorization of the application. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> init_openssl call in ssl_transport_security.cc which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trounces similar calls from the application. The situation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> worse(race condition) if some application threads already >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have locks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acquired via previous calls and then grpc changes the stuff >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underneath >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the locks are released (hence the race condition). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My application has usage of OpenSSL in a wider context >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than just grpc. I get the point that grpc is wrapping this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up to make it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easier for standing up an application with grpc but I think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such type of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things should be accompanied by a compile/run time option >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supplied at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grpc_init that let's application decide the right owner. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am fine with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option defaulting to grpc initializing the OpenSSL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> internally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic in the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/grpc-io/Z48vpXRnJaw/unsubs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cribe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email to grpc-io+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to grp...@googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/3df13436-d771-4450 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -85c3-d2683b08e976%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/3df13436-d771-4450-85c3-d2683b08e976%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic >>>>>>>>>>>> in the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/grpc-io/Z48vpXRnJaw/unsubs >>>>>>>>>>>> cribe. >>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an >>>>>>>>>>>> email to grpc-io+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to grp...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. >>>>>>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/8821745f-9b23-4e3e >>>>>>>>>>>> -b4cf-b88bce513b4b%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/8821745f-9b23-4e3e-b4cf-b88bce513b4b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>>> the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/grpc-io/Z48vpXRnJaw/unsubscribe. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>>> grpc-io+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to grp...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. >>>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/d178eff0-8225-4a0b >>>>>>>> -b63f-ac15afe425e3%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/d178eff0-8225-4a0b-b63f-ac15afe425e3%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>>> . >>>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>> the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >>>>>> pic/grpc-io/Z48vpXRnJaw/unsubscribe. >>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>> grpc-io+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> To post to this group, send email to grp...@googlegroups.com. >>>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. >>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/221ffdb6-aa2c-457d >>>>>> -8772-32ace46173dc%40googlegroups.com >>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/221ffdb6-aa2c-457d-8772-32ace46173dc%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>> . >>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups "grpc.io" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >>>>> pic/grpc-io/Z48vpXRnJaw/unsubscribe. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> grpc-io+u...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> To post to this group, send email to grp...@googlegroups.com. >>>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. >>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/CACcm8_i7f6HdGG3G7 >>>>> 2p_FN2UqwyUzaDyDVKGE3oNP1Xbi9GSwA%40mail.gmail.com >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/CACcm8_i7f6HdGG3G72p_FN2UqwyUzaDyDVKGE3oNP1Xbi9GSwA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>> . >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sincerely yours, >>>> Michael. >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Sincerely yours, >> Michael. >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "grpc.io" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > topic/grpc-io/Z48vpXRnJaw/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > grpc-io+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to grpc-io@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/grpc-io/73d94255-1f90-418f-92ec-524e9cf6f2d6%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/73d94255-1f90-418f-92ec-524e9cf6f2d6%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "grpc.io" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to grpc-io+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to grpc-io@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/grpc-io. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/grpc-io/CA%2BnLVP5jcDHxaPk9q35J_MmYzVYVaYm7fa6b4Hd0HgLz9B9jug%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.