From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7884D42D59; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:04:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F08E541149; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:04:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B644067B; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:04:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FFDC5C00B3; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 06:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 26 Jun 2023 06:04:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=monjalon.net; h= cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date :date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm2; t= 1687773882; x=1687860282; bh=Mh1Dn1idKtyb/lj8kyymyD3l651mT8MoWxp TMDhPFdI=; b=OnUWTT00vwGJrJtLrPGuAnFUak+FtpyLqxgTkIAMNbctyymIKU+ zQFFsTYEc9iQxPDJENuqQ+WGGDbiEG03fsqEhvzw31Pc2zVx7dQ87SNQ7IpKXIZ0 QOP3Fs2alfe5nkdyJlp5Ryx3POAye4BAk9SeruFQwDCQUxO2nVEZa3DBO7vogssn ThNhkg98XKeaMly5qWmp55mpbR+PDRH7FjxMRFKfDv8uI6VI5IprT9oOiDDkGCPz d5SkQX6jZfNnBwWMNF8w/7kV7L0QWc5K8B7R8ocIa73KicoV174gX07rm4HmMyOa e7hPxQMTwblFh8NfqtH++3iTOpRs2p4+P9w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id :from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1687773882; x=1687860282; bh=Mh1Dn1idKtyb/lj8kyymyD3l651mT8MoWxp TMDhPFdI=; b=X0RwFS2DfeupgJGOiEP87/HwPv8aECMaokCay/X+4PGevZ4/558 MXXYcnvxirj5/AAH2//MbpiBINWY1widLXbNORPGy0wuCFghrqZVS6C6vRNbOZ85 Wsul59ZXtaFc/2Js553R/LJ4379lid0hpHSECDQOl8UaJmhApJCtKuyi1/ILG9Sp m41vuNuifyuK3/V1IsCxm2XCbU37JBSUcmQVV2zBSHPHV3bnCYejpWRsvL6I6mee uFP1SZO29bWA8XoChQgLM/QFhU1uFRbazJ0w+YB/pTAk98XyR4kDzeRzjqK2giSw ahJ5MG2cH72w8mACAqbxBPP8cOGgLPtDkOA== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrgeehfedgvddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhephffvvefufffkjghfggfgtgesthhqredttddtjeenucfhrhhomhepvfhhohhm rghsucfoohhnjhgrlhhonhcuoehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvghtqeenuc ggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeegtddtleejjeegffekkeektdejvedtheevtdekiedvueeuvdei uddvleevjeeujeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfh hrohhmpehthhhomhgrshesmhhonhhjrghlohhnrdhnvght X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i47234305:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 26 Jun 2023 06:04:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Didier Pallard Cc: Kai Ji , gakhil@marvell.com, dev@dpdk.org, stable@dpdk.org, Daniel Mrzyglod , Tomasz Kulasek , Michal Kobylinski , Pablo de Lara , Slawomir Mrozowicz Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto/openssl: do not build useless workaround Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2023 12:04:39 +0200 Message-ID: <1720411.yIU609i1g2@thomas> In-Reply-To: References: <20230418145619.2648068-1-didier.pallard@6wind.com> <2809888.Y6S9NjorxK@thomas> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org 26/06/2023 11:13, Didier Pallard: > HI, > not sure to understand how it is possible. > If build OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L, linker should link binary > with libcrypto.so.1.0.0. > libcrypto.so.1.1 if build for 0x10100000L and libcrypto.so.3 for > 0x30000000L > loader should not allow to link with a library different from the one used > at build time, no? You are probably right. libcrypto.so.1.1 and libcrypto.so.1.0 are incompatible versions? If we are linking against libcrypto.so.1.1 and you did exactly a check for lower than libcrypto.so.1.1, then it should be OK. > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:22=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Monjalon wrote: >=20 > > 18/04/2023 16:56, Didier Pallard: > > > This workaround was needed before version 1.0.1f. Do not build it for > > > versions >=3D 1.1. > > > > > > Fixes: d61f70b4c918 ("crypto/libcrypto: add driver for OpenSSL librar= y") > > > Signed-off-by: Didier Pallard > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org > > [...] > > > +#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L > > > /* Workaround open ssl bug in version less then 1.0.1f */ > > > if (EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, empty, &unused, empty, 0) <=3D 0) > > > goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err; > > > +#endif > > > > What happens if we build with OpenSSL 1.1 and run with OpenSSL 1.0? > > Can we have a runtime check? > > Or is it better doing the workaround always as before?