[openssl-dev] openssl 1.0.2 SNAPSHOT issue that exists since 20160521
The Doctor
doctor at doctor.nl2k.ab.ca
Tue May 24 15:44:57 UTC 2016
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 05:15:52PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> In message <20160524142412.GA6384 at doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> on Tue, 24 May 2016 08:24:12 -0600, The Doctor <doctor at doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> said:
>
> doctor> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:26:02PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> doctor> > In message <20160524070954.GA17442 at doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> on Tue, 24 May 2016 01:09:55 -0600, The Doctor <doctor at doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> said:
> doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 10:10:46AM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote:
> doctor> > doctor> > In message <20160523070428.GA17582 at doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> on Mon, 23 May 2016 01:04:29 -0600, The Doctor <doctor at doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> said:
> doctor> > doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 06:34:26AM -0600, The Doctor wrote:
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> > when executing
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> > ../apps/openssl x509 -sha1 -CAcreateserial -in reqCA.ss -days 30 -req -out certCA.ss -signkey keyCA.ss -extfile CAss.cnf -extensions v3_ca
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> > during the test phase, it looks as if the test hangs.
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> > Please look into this.
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor>
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor>
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> This issue now exists in 20160523 .
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor>
> doctor> > doctor> > doctor> Please look into this showstopper.
> doctor> > doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor> > Can't reproduce. I've tried on Linux (Debian bleeding edge) and
> doctor> > doctor> > FreeBSD (8.4-RELEASE-p14). However, I did it with the default config
> doctor> > doctor> > (BSD-x86_64, which is what ./config gives me automagically, and no
> doctor> > doctor> > extra options), please remind me of yours.
> doctor> > doctor> >
> doctor> > doctor>
> doctor> > doctor> All right, what changed between 20160520 and 20160521 ?
> doctor> > doctor>
> doctor> > doctor> Simple question. That is the source of the showstopper.
> doctor> >
> doctor> > I'm attaching the only change that I can think makes a difference.
> doctor> > Try a 'patch -R -p1 < xopen_source.patch' and see if that changes
> doctor> > anything.
> doctor> >
> doctor> > I don't think we're going to back off from that change, so if you can
> doctor> > help us figure out what goes wrong with it on your system and how to
> doctor> > improve the change, that's be great.
> doctor> >
> doctor> > Cheers,
> doctor> > Richard
> doctor> >
> doctor> > --
> doctor> > Richard Levitte levitte at openssl.org
> doctor> > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
> doctor>
> doctor> > commit e10b54ca32280d9fec20085f404dcdcf2217c90e
> doctor> > Author: Andy Polyakov <appro at openssl.org>
> doctor> > Date: Mon May 16 16:44:33 2016 +0200
> doctor> >
> doctor> > rand/randfile.c: remove _XOPEN_SOURCE definition.
> doctor> >
> doctor> > Defintions of macros similar to _XOPEN_SOURCE belong in command line
> doctor> > or in worst case prior first #include directive in source. As for
> doctor> > macros is was allegedly controlling. One can argue that we are
> doctor> > probably better off demanding S_IS* macros but there are systems
> doctor> > that just don't comply, hence this compromise solution...
> doctor> >
> doctor> > Reviewed-by: Rich Salz <rsalz at openssl.org>
> doctor> > (cherry picked from commit 2e6d7799ffc47604d06e0465afeb84b91aff8006)
> doctor> >
> doctor> > diff --git a/crypto/rand/randfile.c b/crypto/rand/randfile.c
> doctor> > index 9537c56..76bdb9a 100644
> doctor> > --- a/crypto/rand/randfile.c
> doctor> > +++ b/crypto/rand/randfile.c
> doctor> > @@ -56,11 +56,6 @@
> doctor> > * [including the GNU Public Licence.]
> doctor> > */
> doctor> >
> doctor> > -/* We need to define this to get macros like S_IFBLK and S_IFCHR */
> doctor> > -#if !defined(OPENSSL_SYS_VXWORKS)
> doctor> > -# define _XOPEN_SOURCE 500
> doctor> > -#endif
> doctor> > -
> doctor> > #include <errno.h>
> doctor> > #include <stdio.h>
> doctor> > #include <stdlib.h>
> doctor> > @@ -80,6 +75,29 @@
> doctor> > #ifndef OPENSSL_NO_POSIX_IO
> doctor> > # include <sys/stat.h>
> doctor> > # include <fcntl.h>
> doctor> > +/*
> doctor> > + * Following should not be needed, and we could have been stricter
> doctor> > + * and demand S_IS*. But some systems just don't comply... Formally
> doctor> > + * below macros are "anatomically incorrect", because normally they
> doctor> > + * would look like ((m) & MASK == TYPE), but since MASK availability
> doctor> > + * is as questionable, we settle for this poor-man fallback...
> doctor> > + */
> doctor> > +# if !defined(S_ISBLK)
> doctor> > +# if defined(_S_IFBLK)
> doctor> > +# define S_ISBLK(m) ((m) & _S_IFBLK)
> doctor> > +# elif defined(S_IFBLK)
> doctor> > +# define S_ISBLK(m) ((m) & S_IFBLK)
> doctor> > +# elif defined(_WIN32)
> doctor> > +# define S_ISBLK(m) 0 /* no concept of block devices on Windows */
> doctor> > +# endif
> doctor> > +# endif
> doctor> > +# if !defined(S_ISCHR)
> doctor> > +# if defined(_S_IFCHR)
> doctor> > +# define S_ISCHR(m) ((m) & _S_IFCHR)
> doctor> > +# elif defined(S_IFCHR)
> doctor> > +# define S_ISCHR(m) ((m) & S_IFCHR)
> doctor> > +# endif
> doctor> > +# endif
> doctor> > #endif
> doctor> >
> doctor> > #ifdef _WIN32
> doctor> > @@ -151,8 +169,8 @@ int RAND_load_file(const char *file, long bytes)
> doctor> > #endif
> doctor> > if (in == NULL)
> doctor> > goto err;
> doctor> > -#if defined(S_IFBLK) && defined(S_IFCHR) && !defined(OPENSSL_NO_POSIX_IO)
> doctor> > - if (sb.st_mode & (S_IFBLK | S_IFCHR)) {
> doctor> > +#if defined(S_ISBLK) && defined(S_ISCHR) && !defined(OPENSSL_NO_POSIX_IO)
> doctor> > + if (S_ISBLK(sb.st_mode) || S_ISCHR(sb.st_mode)) {
> doctor> > /*
> doctor> > * this file is a device. we don't want read an infinite number of
> doctor> > * bytes from a random device, nor do we want to use buffered I/O
> doctor>
> doctor> The patch worked. What is next?
>
> So I understand correctly, it works when the patch is reversed (that's
> what -R does), right? Good, that gives us a point. However, that
> commit is there for a reason, so like I said, if you can help us
> figure out what goes wrong on your system, everyone will be happier.
>
All right, what if you are using egd instead of rnadomd ?
> Cheers,
> Richard
>
> --
> Richard Levitte levitte at openssl.org
> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Abuse a man unjustly, and you will make friends for him. -Edgar Watson Howe
More information about the openssl-dev
mailing list