quic: remove experimental quic#37067
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Conversation
nodejs-github-bot added build 
jasnell changed the title 
nodejs-github-bot commented Jan 25, 2021
tniessen commented Jan 25, 2021
This is unfortunate. Is there any chance BoringSSL might provide QUIC support before OpenSSL does? |
jasnell commented Jan 25, 2021
BoringSSL already does. Up to this point, we've been using Akamai's port of the BoringSSL APIs to OpenSSL 1.1.1. However, because we cannot use BoringSSL in supported releases because of the lack of an adequate LTS policy we cannot depend on it. |
tniessen commented Jan 25, 2021
Yes, that's always been a problem, but we've still applied numerous patches to allow linking Node.js against BoringSSL. Do you see any way of supporting QUIC only when linking against BoringSSL, e.g., within Electron? Or is it too much of a maintenance burden? |
nodejs-github-bot commented Jan 26, 2021
gengjiawen commented Jan 26, 2021
Maybe we keep a boringssl deps only for quic part like https://github.com/cloudflare/quiche did. |
That's entirely up to the @nodejs/tsc as whole. We apply patches to support BoringSSL but that's a far cry from shipping supported features that only work with BoringSSL when we do not ship any officially supported releases that use BoringSSL. |
tniessen commented Jan 26, 2021
Sadly, that's true. I am not advocating for officially supporting BoringSSL, I don't think that's reasonable as long as Google doesn't provide LTS support for BoringSSL Also, I had a few discussions with @codebytere about BoringSSL/Electron in the past and IIRC, some Node.js crypto features are unavailable in Electron because BoringSSL does not provide them. Still, it's sad to not see this progressing in OpenSSL. |
jasnell commented Jan 26, 2021
If we're able to see progress made on the openssl side... even just a realistic time frame when we can expect movement towards official support, then we'd have something better to go on. But as it is now, all of this code just ends up being an open ended maintenance burden. Given the amount of work I've done on this, there's literally no one that is more disappointed by this PR than I am. |
jasnell added the author ready 
nodejs-github-bot commented Jan 30, 2021
This reverts commit 548790a. PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
This reverts commit b0d5bfe. PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
This reverts commit 06c5b53. PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
jasnell commented Jan 30, 2021
Landed in 255d633...290ecb3 .... Ugh this is painful. |
This reverts commit 548790a. PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
This reverts commit b0d5bfe. PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
This reverts commit 06c5b53. PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
PR-URL: #37067 Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Rich Trott <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Tobias Nießen <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <[email protected]> Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
These were added in nodejs#32379 and were supposed to get removed in nodejs#37067. Signed-off-by: Darshan Sen <[email protected]>
9 participants
The OpenSSL OMC has not yet committed to landing the updated QUIC APIs and has indicated that they will not even look at it until OpenSSL 3.1. With OpenSSL 3.0 beta currently delayed with no clear idea of when it will actually land, the initial QUIC support landed in core has now just become a maintenance burden with no clear idea of when we'd ever be capable of delivering it. This PR, therefore, removes the QUIC support and reverts the patched in modifications to openssl. I will be investigating a userland alternative that does not depend on the built-in openssl bindings.