test: snicallback prioritization issue - #54251
Closed
Ethan-Arrowood wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
Sorry, something went wrong.
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. @@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #54251 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 87.11% 87.11% -0.01%
==========================================
Files 647 647
Lines 181693 181739 +46
Branches 34869 34885 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 158278 158316 +38
- Misses 16724 16731 +7
- Partials 6691 6692 +1 see 24 files with indirect coverage changes 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Ethan-Arrowood
force-pushed
the
snicallback-prioritization
branch
from
604a1cf to
e05c222
Compare
August 7, 2024 21:25
Ethan-Arrowood
force-pushed
the
snicallback-prioritization
branch
from
e05c222 to
b7afc71
Compare
August 7, 2024 21:27
Ethan-Arrowood
marked this pull request as draft
June 3, 2025 20:28
Depending on the content of a cert, it seems that OpenSSL will prioritize the root cert over the context returned by SNICallback. This behavior is unexpected. This PR adds a test that demonstrates the behavior. Ideally there is a fix, or a explanation for this behavior we can add to the docs. Fixes: nodejs#54235 PR-URL: nodejs#54251
Ethan-Arrowood
force-pushed
the
snicallback-prioritization
branch
from
b7afc71 to
fd1228f
Compare
August 14, 2025 01:41
mikuso
reviewed
Jul 22, 2026
Comment thread
test/parallel/test-https-snicallback-override.js
Copy link
Copy Markdown
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is an error in the test. This line should read context: tls.createSecureContext(root) instead.
Currently, it doesn't affect the test result because the SNI callback will return an undefined context, causing it to use the default context which coincidentally mirrors the one created here.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Reviewers
1 more reviewer3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR contains a new test that demonstrates the issue I outlined in #54235
I really don't think there is anything wrong with Node.js - it feels to me like an OpenSSL thing. Most likely not a bug either, but an intended behavior where certain certificates are prioritized over others.