> -----Original Message----- > From: Ard Biesheuvel [mailto:ard.biesheu...@linaro.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 8:52 PM > To: David Woodhouse > Cc: edk2-devel@lists.01.org; Cohen, Eugene; Long, Qin > Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] CryptoPkg/OpensslLib: comment out unused code > > On 3 December 2015 at 13:46, David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 13:13 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > >> > >> OK, then I think we're good. I can still build my secure boot enabled > >> platform with those files removed from OpensslLib, so they are not > >> used. And in fact, the timestamp related functions are duplicated in > >> BaseCryptLib anyway, which is the reason I have to remove them here. > > > > As discussed, we should work out why the OpenSSL TS functionality > > needed to be reimplemented in CryptoLib, and *fix* that. > > > > I was hoping Qin was going to come back with his analysis on this topic.
Sorry for the late response against this. It's really one historical issue. In fact, we enabled the UEFI timestamp (DBT) support >From openssl-0.9.8xxx which didn't include any TS support (which was >introduced from 1.0.xx). That's why we implemented our self-owned timestamp wrapper. Yes, I am also investigating the timestamp support using the native TS APIs. One thing We need consider is: there are still some platforms / releases layering on the 0.9.8xxx. So this updates may not be happened soon. It's acceptable for me to comment out the TS sources now. (I had thought I already did this in OpensslLib.inf. In fact, I am wrong.) > > >> The reason to omit pqueue is that it calls printf() unconditionally, > >> which we don't supply. > > > > That's a bug. Please file in OpenSSL RT. > > > > OK, fair enough. But there is still no need to build it _______________________________________________ edk2-devel mailing list edk2-devel@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel
