LWP::Protocol::https loses Client-SSL-Version response metadata
还没有人认领这个 Issue。
评估
- 难度
- 4/5
- 预计耗时
- 3-5 天
- 新手友好度
- 45/100
- Issue 类型
- 缺陷
- 描述清晰度
- 基本清楚
- 活跃度
- 活跃
- 领域
- networking, security
调研方向
从 t/example.t 开始,跟踪 get_sslversion 从 LWP::Protocol::https 经过 IO::Socket::SSL 到 Java bridge 的 _get_sslversion 实现。验证 Java SSLSocket 的会话协议是否以预期的 TLSvN.N 或 SSLvN 值传递到 Perl,并且使用的是同一个已升级为 TLS 的 socket。在网络访问可用时,确定性的本地或 mock 回归测试通过,且两个 backend 上的 t/example.t 均成功,即表示完成。
由索引模型根据 Issue 内容生成。
描述
Summary
LWP::Protocol::https v6.15 can complete an HTTPS request under PerlOnJava but fails to expose the negotiated TLS protocol version through the expected Client-SSL-Version response header.
CPAN evidence
- CPAN run:
20260918-141920-96054 - Distribution:
LWP::Protocol::httpsv6.15 - System Perl: PASS — 4 files, 62 tests
- PerlOnJava: FAIL — 1/4 test programs, 1/6 reported subtests
The failing test is t/example.t. The HTTPS request to https://httpbin.org succeeds, and the other response metadata checks pass, but this assertion fails:
Failed test 'have header Client-SSL-Version'
The PerlOnJava run skips t/https_proxy.t because fork is unsupported; that skip is unrelated to the failure.
Expected behavior
After a successful HTTPS request, LWP::Protocol::https should expose a negotiated TLS version in Client-SSL-Version, normally matching a value such as TLSv1.2 or TLSv1.3.
The same distribution passes completely under system Perl, including the version-header assertion.
Suspected cause
LWP::Protocol::https obtains the metadata from the underlying socket through:
$sock->get_sslversion
PerlOnJava supplies an IO::Socket::SSL compatibility layer backed by Java TLS. The Java bridge has an _get_sslversion implementation that reads the SSLSession protocol, but the CPAN test still receives no usable Client-SSL-Version value. This suggests a mismatch in socket identity, TLS-session access, protocol-string conversion, or metadata propagation between the Java socket and the Perl compatibility layer.
The failure is not an inability to establish HTTPS: the request reaches the server and the test proceeds to inspect the response. It is specifically a missing negotiated-version diagnostic.
Reproduction
Run the LWP::Protocol::https v6.15 test suite under PerlOnJava in an environment where httpbin.org:443 is reachable. t/example.t should fail at the Client-SSL-Version assertion while system Perl passes the complete suite.
A fresh local rerun outside the archived CPAN job could not reach httpbin.org and was skipped by Test::RequiresInternet, so the archived CPAN run is the retained reproduction evidence.
Requested fix
- Trace the negotiated TLS session from Java
SSLSocketthroughIO::Socket::SSL::get_sslversion. - Ensure the returned protocol string is available as a Perl scalar and has the expected
TLSvN.N/SSLvNform. - Verify that the socket object used by
LWP::Protocol::httpsis the same TLS-upgraded socket exposed by the Java bridge. - Add a deterministic project-owned regression test for TLS protocol metadata that does not depend on
httpbin.org, using a local TLS endpoint or a focused mock socket/session. - Rerun
LWP::Protocol::httpst/example.ton both JVM and interpreter backends when network access is available.
- 主要语言
- Perl
- 星标
- 64
- 派生
- 6
- 平均合并
- 5 小时 38 分钟
- 30 天内合并 PR
- 170
贡献指南
从这里开始
- 先读完整个 Issue,再读项目的贡献指南。
- 在 Issue 下留言说明你要接手 —— 这能避免两个人做同样的事。
- Fork 仓库,在一个分支上完成修改。
- 提交 Pull Request,并在描述里引用这个 Issue 编号。
fglock/PerlOnJava 的其他 Issue
-
area:cpan-port area:unicode bug
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 88/100
fglock/PerlOnJava#1341 ·
-
area:backend area:runtime bug
难度 4/5 3-5 天 新手友好度 45/100
fglock/PerlOnJava#1511 ·
-
area:backend area:cpan-port bug
难度 4/5 3-5 天 新手友好度 45/100
fglock/PerlOnJava#1508 · 1 条评论 ·
-
area:cpan-port area:platform enhancement
难度 5/5 一周以上 新手友好度 30/100
fglock/PerlOnJava#1507 ·
-
bug
难度 4/5 3-5 天 新手友好度 45/100
fglock/PerlOnJava#1506 ·
查看 fglock/PerlOnJava 的全部 Issue
相似的 Issue
-
documentation Needs Triage
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 75/100
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 75/100
trizen/youtube-viewer#456 ·
-
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 70/100
-
connectivity 未关闭
难度 1/5 1 小时以内 新手友好度 80/100
-
Common US ingredient names are not recognized, so about 12.4k US products miss an allergen warning 未关闭
难度 2/5 1-3 小时 新手友好度 75/100
openfoodfacts/openfoodfacts-server#14657 · 4 条评论 ·