[PATCH] lib/rsa: Remove support for OpenSSL < 1.1.0 and libressl < 2.7.0

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 12:48:29PM -0500, Alex G. wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/2/21 12:43 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 3:38 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 03:36:43PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 2:28 PM Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 01:31:21PM -0500, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Older OpenSSL and libressl versions have a slightly different API.
> > > > > > This require #ifdefs to support. However, we still can't support it
> > > > > > because the ECDSA path does not compile with these older versions.
> > > > > > These #ifdefs are truly a vestigial appendage.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Alternatively, the ECDSA path could be updated for older libraries,
> > > > > > but this requires significant extra code, and #ifdefs. Those libraries
> > > > > > are over three years old, and there concerns whether it makes sense to
> > > > > > build modern software for real world use against such old libraries.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thusly, remove #ifdefs and code for old OpenSSL and LibreSSL support.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke.me at gmail.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Applied to u-boot/next, thanks!
> > > > 
> > > > According to recent CVE announcements 1.1.0 is out of support [1],
> > > > does it make sense to just support 1.1.1x and later?
> > > > 
> > > > [1] https://www.openssl.org/news/secadv/20210824.txt
> > > 
> > > Good question.  Are there API changes between 1.1.0 and 1.1.1x ?
> > 
> > So outside of the new TLS 1.3 feature the release says "What’s more is
> > that OpenSSL 1.1.1 is API and ABI compliant with OpenSSL 1.1.0" and
> > depending on how we use openssl it may even be API compatible with 3.0
> > when it comes out any time now.
> > 
> > https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2018/09/11/release111/
> 
> Okay, I don't think it's worth excluding 1.1.0 then. The only way we could
> do that is a compile time check against OPENSSL_VERSION.
> 
> That won't prevent someone from compiling with openssl 1.1.1, and then just
> replacing libcrypto.so with 1.1.0.

That's what I was figuring.  If there was compatibility code we could
drop, it would make sense.  But since there's not, I don't think we're
in a position to really influence things.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20210902/8be6f8e8/attachment.sig>