From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f181.google.com (mail-io0-f181.google.com [209.85.223.181]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF1316022E for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:19:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f181.google.com with SMTP id r145so117797272ior.0 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:19:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sbPUBrY2LJR6puDSt5zH9VsW5y/ZFPe0nYEHLpAxChc=; b=WeJUa/GscLDudvFAjufbZdDt0XI3CV9Jln77xK/T+IjvZAyoB80hJhjZc9suP4W50e o6E3Nnq8Ex4cL4hhsMDBBnnjuT3ZxFQjMxrfV9v4qLMh7grH8jJm77Ta8G5Yd7Z1s88q zCIhNEPZeZijzidT3dbgMauc2umfIHbE91xdDXM7Kv/dzGLcHrxYC2oKjQGaYLWJQ5wE VDaXTtinZPQgMzvcmCKpbAUDfM8rB9SgqtKYmArIbgops3IgFaXG7foG2femw5kT6Jk9 K4p5Xh1iWhiw/3RezKg+BHXlmrC725sX7Jr42k3621ZVGc/TnUDhOD3XhojOYlM0mryu ubNw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sbPUBrY2LJR6puDSt5zH9VsW5y/ZFPe0nYEHLpAxChc=; b=gSaCm2710ObqHcgbnKovyQAjPuQ9JDJ9DxByOjfKbE4OZTKNYfv6FCsSZelpviqh8O ky2ec4XuyJeABr4SL1DhT8aQ87jLDcucwidOUN0ctmVColz3mwGJdwBY3Nla2YjY0zcJ 26Vsiqp9ou8r3FW35rI1WaF6n41fAXa4tbUeZ/sfF5apc7WhkCCIvlDzo9e+qi+Z0AWe /qnr3cq2sEgWNJSpewZ3RxnXG8ra9b2vzRSQPJNkf/8bRbcfaSd0jN3PwHWlU7DEqEi+ /BzrLfdd7WXDRzHfRWfc1rUD3/zBHXLURI66tO7ZFGxAU1eR+iAPRCAHBHbxXfaJScTe hXAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwOqNjoGr8hT7yeXaqgFyJUeVC/nEdm0B/OHn9nOcheQW6OTjFhb4/A5d7yEGFCfJl4y X-Received: by 10.107.170.148 with SMTP id g20mr9002538ioj.24.1474636764301; Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:19:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p57A56298.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [87.165.98.152]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b137sm2811162ioe.40.2016.09.23.06.19.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 23 Sep 2016 06:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1474636754.8561.6.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Alexander Kanavin Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:19:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: <2890fce9-ac23-d251-8b15-c8b11994e795@linux.intel.com> References: <1474626443.7161.5.camel@intel.com> <2890fce9-ac23-d251-8b15-c8b11994e795@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] openssl: update to 1.0.2i (CVE-2016-6304 and more) X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:19:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 15:11 +0300, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On 09/23/2016 01:27 PM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > There is one FAIL: > > > > ../util/shlib_wrap.sh ./dtlstest ../apps/server.pem ../apps/server.pem > > Starting Test 0 > > Failed to load server certificate > > Unable to create SSL_CTX pair > > make[2]: Leaving directory '/usr/lib/openssl/ptest/test' > > FAIL: test_dtls > > > > That's because server.pem wasn't installed. I'll fix that. > > > > However, ptest-runner returns with 0, i.e. success? Should it do that? > > What does the failing test itself return? After checking the > ptest-runner source code, it shouldn't return 0 if one of the tests it > runs fails with a non-zero exit. openssl's test/Makefile is the culprit: alltests: @(for i in $(all-tests); do \ ( $(MAKE) $$i && echo "PASS: $$i" ) || echo "FAIL: $$i"; \ done) If any test fails, it'll print FAIL, but won't cause make to fail and thus the error never results in a non-zero exit code anywhere. Here's a version which reports the problem via the return code: alltests: @(result=0; for i in $(all-tests); do \ if $(MAKE) $$i; then echo "PASS: $$i"; else echo "FAIL: $$i"; result=1; fi; \ done; exit $$result) OpenSSL seems to rely on output checking. Not sure whether a patch changing that would be accepted. How are ptests used in the autobuilders? Does the return code of ptest-runner matter, or is the output checked for ^PASS|SKIP|FAIL? Speaking of the autobuilders and openssl-ptest in general, has no-one noticed before that occasionally tests fail because file time stamps imply that recompilation is needed? I got that a few times now and will send a fix. I'm just wondering why that wasn't a problem earlier. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.