[openssl-users] Building libcrypto/libssl without symbolic link

Wed Apr 22 19:04:04 UTC 2015

(Top posting because some other posters did so).

Please note the following problems with the so naming
defaults in version 1.0.2a:

1. On Android, developers are (or were until recently)
officially told *not* to rely on the system copy of OpenSSL,
since it is not part of the official API.  Thus packaging
your own copy or relying on the botched version of Java
JCE implemented on top of the system OpenSSL are the only
officially supported options.

2. On many systems that install OpenSSL 1.0.1 (any patch
level) as libcrypto.so.1.0.0, installing OpenSSL 1.0.2a
as libcrypto.so.1.0.0 will instantly break system software
linked against the 1.0.1 under the same ABI name.  So much
for binary compatibility.

Thus for Android, you would want to link it as
libcom_yourdomain_yourapp_crypto.so (file name must match
lib*.so for theapk to unpack correctly), or as a static
PIC library, making the system think it has nothing to do
with any well-known or other app's copy of OpenSSL. Be
sure to release new versions of your app whenever an
OpenSSL security update affects something you actually use
from the library.

For parallel installation of OpenSSL 1.0.2a and the OS
supplied OpenSSL 1.0.1 (with patches equivalent to the
latest release), modify SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER from 1.0.0
to 1.0.2 in the folliwing files from the tarball:

crypto/opensslv.h
Makefile
Makefile.bak

I have pasted the patch I use at the end of this mail
(nothing cryptographic, soI think I can post that without
extra red tape).



On 22/04/2015 16:26, John Foley wrote:
> Are you packaging libcrypto.so into the APK yourself?  The Android OS
> comes with it's own resident copy of libcrypto.  You can leverage this
> from your app without having to package libcrypto into your
> application.  This assumes the version of libcrypto that comes with
> Android meets your needs.  Given the various flavors of Android out in
> the wild, this may limit what your application can do with libcrypto.
>
> If you're packaging libcrypto into your APK, one problem I've seen in
> Android is the System.LoadLibrary() call will use the host resident copy
> of libcrypto instead of the one packaged in the APK.  One way to get
> around this is to hack the linker step in the OpenSSL makefile to rename
> libcrypto to something different.  You'll need to make sure the -soname
> option on the linker step is consistent with whatever you name the
> library.  For instance, you can name it libcryptoX.so, and pass in this
> same name to the -soname option.  Confirm that it works using objdump to
> view the ELF header.  The soname will be in the ELF header.  Then
> package libcryptoX.so into your APK and use this name with the
> System.LoadLibrary() call.
>
>
>
> On 04/22/2015 09:41 AM, Shanku Roy wrote:
>> Am cross compiling the FIPS enabled version for Android; In Android, some apps are having trouble loading their bundled libcrypto library when the binary is named as *.so.1.0.0 instead of libcrypto.so as platform library.
>>
>>   
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Viktor Dukhovni <openssl-users at dukhovni.org>
>> To: openssl-users at openssl.org
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:47 PM
>> Subject: Re: [openssl-users] Building libcrypto/libssl without symbolic link
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:12:45AM +0000, Shanku Roy wrote:
>>> lrw-r--r-- root     root              2015-04-10 02:33 libcrypto.so -> libcrypto.so.1.0.0
>>> -rw-r--r-- root     root      1988088 2015-04-10 02:27 libcrypto.so.1.0.0
>>>
>>> Is there any configure option in OpenSSL build scripts to not generate
>>> the symbolic links and rather generate actual binary as
>>> libcrypto.so/libssl.so from the build process like following:
>> The library "soname" is part of the ABI.  What platform are you
>> building for where it would not be appropriate to encode the ABI
>> compatibility name into the library name?


(Beware of long lines in this patch)
=================== Cut here ===================
diff -Naur openssl-1.0.2a.orig/crypto/opensslv.h 
openssl-1.0.2a/crypto/opensslv.h

--- openssl-1.0.2a.orig/crypto/opensslv.h    2015-03-19 
14:31:16.000000000 +0100
+++ openssl-1.0.2a/crypto/opensslv.h    2015-03-22 23:10:15.000000000 +0100
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
   * should only keep the versions that are binary compatible with the 
current.
   */
  # define SHLIB_VERSION_HISTORY ""
-# define SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER "1.0.0"
+# define SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER "1.0.2"


  #ifdef  __cplusplus
diff -Naur openssl-1.0.2a.orig/Makefile openssl-1.0.2a/Makefile
--- openssl-1.0.2a.orig/Makefile    2015-03-19 14:31:16.000000000 +0100
+++ openssl-1.0.2a/Makefile    2015-03-22 23:06:50.000000000 +0100
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
  VERSION=1.0.2a
  MAJOR=1
  MINOR=0.2
-SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER=1.0.0
+SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER=1.0.2
  SHLIB_VERSION_HISTORY=
  SHLIB_MAJOR=1
-SHLIB_MINOR=0.0
+SHLIB_MINOR=0.2
  SHLIB_EXT=
  PLATFORM=dist
  OPTIONS= no-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128 no-gmp no-jpake no-krb5 no-libunbound 
no-md2 no-rc5 no-rfc3779 no-sctp no-shared no-ssl-trace no-store 
no-unit-test no-zlib no-zlib-dynamic static-engine
diff -Naur openssl-1.0.2a.orig/Makefile.bak openssl-1.0.2a/Makefile.bak
--- openssl-1.0.2a.orig/Makefile.bak    2015-03-19 14:30:59.000000000 +0100
+++ openssl-1.0.2a/Makefile.bak    2015-03-22 23:07:01.000000000 +0100
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
  VERSION=1.0.2a-dev
  MAJOR=1
  MINOR=0.2
-SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER=1.0.0
+SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER=1.0.2
  SHLIB_VERSION_HISTORY=
  SHLIB_MAJOR=1
-SHLIB_MINOR=0.0
+SHLIB_MINOR=0.2
  SHLIB_EXT=
  PLATFORM=gcc
  OPTIONS= no-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128 no-gmp no-jpake no-krb5 no-libunbound 
no-md2 no-rc5 no-rfc3779 no-sctp no-shared no-ssl-trace no-store 
no-unit-test no-zlib no-zlib-dynamic static-engine

=================== Cut here ===================

Enjoy

Jakob
-- 
Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S.  http://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark.  Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded

