On Tuesday 16 December 2014 18:15:19 Hanno Böck wrote: > On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:11:34 +0100 > > Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> wrote: > > they don't differ... > > oh sorry, must've pasted the wrong string. > > But please ignore my first patch, I don't think this is optimal. I'll > do another one later. > > What I think is a sane approach is to leave the current code mostly as > it is, just add one further sorting step that will bring GCM ciphers in > front of non-gcm ones. > I think that should give the desired result.
to this specific issue, yes, but in general fixing ordering also with relation to PFS is a good idea -- Regards, Hubert Kario Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic _______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list openssl-dev@openssl.org https://mta.opensslfoundation.net/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
