Re: SSL tests fail on OpenSSL v3.2.0
От | Tristan Partin |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SSL tests fail on OpenSSL v3.2.0 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CXA1ZSED7C9E.MC7U8Q4LHX2T@neon.tech обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: SSL tests fail on OpenSSL v3.2.0 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: SSL tests fail on OpenSSL v3.2.0
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 7:14 PM CST, Tom Lane wrote: > "Tristan Partin" <tristan@neon.tech> writes: > > On Mon Nov 27, 2023 at 6:21 PM CST, Tom Lane wrote: > >> What about LibreSSL? In general, I'm not too pleased with just assuming > >> that BIO_get_app_data exists. > > > Falling back to what existed before is invalid. > > Well, sure it only worked by accident, but it did work with older > OpenSSL versions. If we assume that BIO_get_app_data exists, and > somebody tries to use it with a version that hasn't got that, > it won't work. > > Having said that, my concern was mainly driven by the comments in > configure.ac claiming that this was an OpenSSL 1.1.0 addition. > Looking at the relevant commits, 593d4e47d and 5c6df67e0, it seems > that that was less about "the function doesn't exist before 1.1.0" > and more about "in 1.1.0 we have to use the function because we > can no longer directly access the ptr field". If the function > does exist in 0.9.8 then I concur that we don't need to test. I have gone back all the way to 1.0.0 and confirmed that the function exists. Didn't choose to go further than that since Postgres doesn't support it. -- Tristan Partin Neon (https://neon.tech)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: