From: Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>
To: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>,
Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] openssl10: Fix mutliple include assumptions for bn.h in opensslconf.h
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 20:44:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190228014405.GV19169@denix.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190226031951.GT19169@denix.org>
Ping. Any comments here? Thanks!
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:19:51PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> Khem, Richard,
>
> Sorry for belated reply. I haven't had time for master yet, but since this
> just got backported to thud, I'm seeing a similar breakage.
>
> First of all, BN_LLONG not being defined does seem to be "fixed" by this
> patch, but I'm not entirely sure why it now checks for OPENSSL_SYS_UEFI - this
> seems to be a new define in OpenSSL 1.1, and doesn't even exist in OpenSSL 1.0
> Is it a pure luck that it works now? Any hidden meaning I missded?
>
> And it also breaks exactly the same for DES_LONG due to a similar construct:
>
>
> #if (defined(HEADER_NEW_DES_H) || defined(HEADER_DES_H)) && !defined(DES_LONG)
> /* If this is set to 'unsigned int' on a DEC Alpha, this gives about a
> * %20 speed up (longs are 8 bytes, int's are 4). */
> #ifndef DES_LONG
> #define DES_LONG unsigned int
> #endif
> #endif
>
>
> I was going to fix it similarly as BN_LLONG, but since I don't understand how
> it was supposed to be fixed, I'm not sure how to fix DES_LONG not being
> defined. Any ideas?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Denys
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:25:26PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
> > After adding #pragma once to wrapper header ( opensslconf.h ) this
> > latent issue got to bite us, where it expect bn.h to be including
> > openssl.h to define BN_* defines, which is fragile. This patch removes
> > the contraints for nested includes for bn.h
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > .../0001-Fix-BN_LLONG-breakage.patch | 33 +++++++++++++++++++
> > .../openssl/openssl10_1.0.2q.bb | 1 +
> > 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl10/0001-Fix-BN_LLONG-breakage.patch
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl10/0001-Fix-BN_LLONG-breakage.patch b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl10/0001-Fix-BN_LLONG-breakage.patch
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..13d39c918c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl10/0001-Fix-BN_LLONG-breakage.patch
> > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
> > +From 247b3188cde5f3347091cd54271127386d3aece0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > +From: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > +Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 22:10:33 -0800
> > +Subject: [PATCH] Fix BN_LLONG breakage
> > +
> > +opensslconf.h is un-defining BN_LLONG only when included from bn.h which
> > +is not robust at all, especially when include guards are used and
> > +multiple inclusions of a given header is not allowed. so lets take out
> > +the nesting constraint and add OPENSSL_SYS_UEFI constraint instead
> > +
> > +Upstream-Status: Inappropriate [ fixed differently with OpenSSL 1.1+ ]
> > +
> > +Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> > +---
> > + crypto/opensslconf.h.in | 2 +-
> > + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > +
> > +diff --git a/crypto/opensslconf.h.in b/crypto/opensslconf.h.in
> > +index 7a1c85d..a10c10f 100644
> > +--- a/crypto/opensslconf.h.in
> > ++++ b/crypto/opensslconf.h.in
> > +@@ -56,7 +56,7 @@
> > + #endif
> > + #endif
> > +
> > +-#if defined(HEADER_BN_H) && !defined(CONFIG_HEADER_BN_H)
> > ++#if !defined(OPENSSL_SYS_UEFI) && !defined(CONFIG_HEADER_BN_H)
> > + #define CONFIG_HEADER_BN_H
> > + #undef BN_LLONG
> > +
> > +--
> > +2.20.1
> > +
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl10_1.0.2q.bb b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl10_1.0.2q.bb
> > index 809634f6c0..88aefdea4f 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl10_1.0.2q.bb
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssl/openssl10_1.0.2q.bb
> > @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ SRC_URI = "http://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-${PV}.tar.gz \
> > file://0001-Fix-build-with-clang-using-external-assembler.patch \
> > file://0001-openssl-force-soft-link-to-avoid-rare-race.patch \
> > file://0001-allow-manpages-to-be-disabled.patch \
> > + file://0001-Fix-BN_LLONG-breakage.patch \
> > "
> >
> > SRC_URI_append_class-target = " \
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-core mailing list
> > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-28 1:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-07 6:25 [PATCH] openssl10: Fix mutliple include assumptions for bn.h in opensslconf.h Khem Raj
2019-02-26 3:19 ` Denys Dmytriyenko
2019-02-28 1:44 ` Denys Dmytriyenko [this message]
2019-02-28 1:51 ` Khem Raj
2019-03-01 17:35 ` Denys Dmytriyenko
2019-03-01 17:40 ` Khem Raj
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190228014405.GV19169@denix.org \
--to=denis@denix.org \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=raj.khem@gmail.com \
--cc=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox