s2n VS plan9port

It seems to support multiple options but requires you pick at least one of them. https://github.com/aws/s2n-tls/blob/main/docs/BUILD.md#build...

I think GnuTLS is probably the second most popular TLS library, after openssl.

I'll also mentions s2n and rustls-ffi for completeness as C libraries, though the former isn't widely used, and the latter is very experimental still. https://github.com/aws/s2n-tls and https://github.com/rustls/rustls-ffi respectively.

I've seen operating on unauthenticated plaintext enough times to list it as my own pet peeve with AES-GCM. But it's a problem for chunked messages too. A few years ago we released a SCRAM mode that makes very minimal changes to AES-GCM so that it mathematically can't operate on unauthenticated plaintext. https://github.com/aws/s2n-tls/tree/main/scram

> The documentation is kind of vague, but apparently you have to re-enable it regularly.[3]

This is correct. And in the end it means more or less that setting the socket option is more of a way of sending an explicit ACK from userspace than a real setting.

It's not great for common use-cases, because making userspace care about ACKs will obviously degrade efficiency (more syscalls).

However it can make sense for some use-cases. E.g. I saw the s2n TLS library using QUICKACK to avoid the TLS handshake being stuck [1]. Maybe also worthwhile to be set in some specific RPC scenarios where the server might not immediately send a response on receiving the request, and where the client could send additional frames (e.g. gRPC client side streaming, or in pipelined HTTP requests if the server would really process those in parallel and not just let them sit in socket buffers).

[1] https://github.com/aws/s2n-tls/blob/46c47a71e637cabc312ce843...

It looks like by default s2n-quic uses this TLS implementation, which is not based on the ring crate (though it is written in C)

https://github.com/aws/s2n-tls

I would be interested in the other SSL implementations:

- https://github.com/awslabs/s2n

- https://boringssl.googlesource.com/boringssl

- https://bearssl.org/

Are these subpar implementations or there are other reasons not to use these?

[2] https://9fans.github.io/plan9port/

If you find it too complicated and closely tied to Go internals, you can also check out Plan 9 from User Space's version, which is itself based on libthread from Plan 9 starting from 3rd edition, which is itself based on Alef's implementation of channels (Alef is Go's grandfather).

I tried plan9port's mk for a moment out of curiosity. I quickly ran into an annoying usability problem: it compares file mtimes with second accuracy.

https://github.com/9fans/plan9port/blob/cc4571fec67407652b03...

With sub-second build times for individual targets, this causes mk to needlessly recompile files because the target may have the same mtime as the prerequisites.

Isn't like everything plan9 related mentioned on https://suckless.org/rocks ? They say the stuff from plan9port "rocks" since they match the suckless philosophy for a program (and compatability for dwm) if I understand correctly.