[openssl-project] The problem of (implicit) relinking and changed behaviour
bernd.edlinger at hotmail.de
Sun Apr 15 06:24:48 UTC 2018
On 04/15/18 07:53, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Apr 15, 2018, at 1:38 AM, Richard Levitte <levitte at openssl.org> wrote:
>> Errr, are we? Please inform me, because I cannot remember having seen
>> tests that specifically targets the case of programs built with 1.1.0
>> that get implicitly relinked with 1.1.1 libraries (that's what you
>> call "going forward", isn't it?), or data collection for that matter.
>> I may have missed something, but I am interested.
> It think it is most prudent to not fall into the trap of debating this
> particular side-issue. I commend your initiative of running the 1.1.0
> tests against the 1.1.1 libraries, that's fantastic. And I further
> commend attention to the failure cases. Thank you.
> With that out of the way, it seems to me that apart from some fixes in
> the test framework, and tests that did not expect protocol versions
> higher than TLS 1.2, no *interesting* issues have turned up.
> If such issue did or will turn up let's fix them, but there should not
> be fundamental obstacles to an ABI-compatible 1.1.1 library with the
> same SONAME as its 1.1.0 predecessor. The new library may negotiate
> TLS 1.3 which 1.1.0 did not, but I don't see that as an incompatibility
> that requires an SONAME version bump.
> Which is not to say I could not be convinced otherwise, but at present
> I don't see a need for the bump, or for work-arounds to limit the
> negotiated protocols for code compiled against 1.1.0 that happens to
> run against 1.1.1.
> Let's stay alert, but not overreact to minor issues we can resolve.
One possible example of application failure that I am aware of is #5743:
A certificate that is incompatible with TLS1.3 but works with TLS1.2.
Admittedly that I did come up with that scenario only because I saw
a possible issue per code inspection.
More information about the openssl-project