Re: [openssl-dev] status of libefence (electric fence)
On 10/21/2016 04:14 PM, Salz, Rich asked: > Is electric fence even available any more? It's bundled with current Debian and Ubuntu. >From the README: "This version should run on all systems that support POSIX mmap() and mprotect(). This includes Linux, Unix, and I think even BeOS." -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
[openssl-dev] anonymous bug report
(came in via mixmaster anonymous remailer) $ openssl version OpenSSL 1.0.2j 26 Sep 2016 Typo in NEWS file: Major changes between OpenSSL 1.0.2g and OpenSSL 1.0.2h [3 May 2016] ... o Remove LOW from the DEFAULT cipher list. This removes singles DES from the default. Replace "singles" with "single". By the way, a huge thank you to everyone writing/maintaining such a great and important piece of software. Our lives (physical, financial, social) literally depend on it! -- Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies Member, OpenSSL Dev Team IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Re: [openssl-dev] Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?
In message <20161022.012155.944333974616925164.levi...@openssl.org> on Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:21:55 +0200 (CEST), Richard Levitte said: levitte> In message <21c4f180c97a4da6b716f852ac4d4...@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 23:14:43 +, "Salz, Rich" said: levitte> levitte> rsalz> Is electric fence even available any more? Just kill it. levitte> levitte> I just looked around, and it looks like you're right. Awright, I'll levitte> do the kill. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1768 Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Re: [openssl-dev] Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?
In message <21c4f180c97a4da6b716f852ac4d4...@usma1ex-dag1mb1.msg.corp.akamai.com> on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 23:14:43 +, "Salz, Rich" said: rsalz> Is electric fence even available any more? Just kill it. I just looked around, and it looks like you're right. Awright, I'll do the kill. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Re: [openssl-dev] Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?
Actually, -lefence comes from much further back in time. If you look at the configuration strings in Configure in version 1.0.2, you'll find debug-linux-elf, with that dreaded -lefence. Back in that version, ./config treats -d by prefixing the desired target with 'debug-', so 'debug-linux-elf' is the official debugging target for 'linux-elf'. This was transferred to the new configuration hash by merging all debug-FOO targets with their corresponding FOO targets and make debugging and non-debugging variants of a number of settings. Not sure that I remember if or why 'debug-linux-elf' ended up in 90-team.conf... Anyway, I assume that what you're really asking is if libefence should be viewed as antique. If nothing else, we could be a bit more consistent (there is a lack of consistency between configuration targets!)... Me, I have no issues, removing -lefence from the debug settings of 'linux-elf' and replace 'debug-linux-elf-noefence' with 'debug-linux-elf-efence'. Cheers, Richard In message on Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:00:36 -0500, Benjamin Kaduk said: bkaduk> During some testing today, I ended up trying to do a build of 1.1.0b bkaduk> configured for linux-elf --debug (with no-asm to work around some bkaduk> issue that was not my primary concern at the time), which failed due bkaduk> to a missing -lefence. The corresponding linux-x86_64 build on the bkaduk> same machine succeeds. bkaduk> bkaduk> It seems that this happened as a result of commit bkaduk> 7910044064e106073c097a6940d25fe36401266b, "Find debug- targets that bkaduk> can be combined with their non-debug counterparts", which ended up bkaduk> moving the contents of the debug-linux-elf target from 90-team.conf to bkaduk> 10-main.conf where the linux-elf target lives. Having electric fence bkaduk> enabled in a team-only configuration seems reasonable, but it's less bkaduk> clear that it's the right thing to do for a target in 10-main.conf, bkaduk> even when --debug is used. (There is an explicit bkaduk> debug-linux-elf-noefence target in 90-team.conf, for what it's worth.) bkaduk> bkaduk> Should the efence build be moved to a different target in 90-team.conf bkaduk> leaving the debug-version of linux-elf buildable in a more generic set bkaduk> of environments? bkaduk> bkaduk> -Ben -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Re: [openssl-dev] Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?
Is electric fence even available any more? Just kill it. -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
[openssl-dev] Why is libefence needed for 32-bit debug (linux-elf) builds?
During some testing today, I ended up trying to do a build of 1.1.0b configured for linux-elf --debug (with no-asm to work around some issue that was not my primary concern at the time), which failed due to a missing -lefence. The corresponding linux-x86_64 build on the same machine succeeds. It seems that this happened as a result of commit 7910044064e106073c097a6940d25fe36401266b, "Find debug- targets that can be combined with their non-debug counterparts", which ended up moving the contents of the debug-linux-elf target from 90-team.conf to 10-main.conf where the linux-elf target lives. Having electric fence enabled in a team-only configuration seems reasonable, but it's less clear that it's the right thing to do for a target in 10-main.conf, even when --debug is used. (There is an explicit debug-linux-elf-noefence target in 90-team.conf, for what it's worth.) Should the efence build be moved to a different target in 90-team.conf leaving the debug-version of linux-elf buildable in a more generic set of environments? -Ben -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
Re: [openssl-dev] "typo" in SSL_CTX_set_min_proto_version.pod
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/1762 -- openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev
