I'm building haproxy 1.8.0 from tarball source.

I'm linking against a specific, local build of openssl v1.1.0

Explicitly specifying SSL_INC & SSL_LIB with rpath,

        make \
         TARGET=linux2628 \
         USE_SYSTEMD=1 \
         USE_PCRE2=1 USE_PCRE2_JIT=1 \
         USE_OPENSSL=1 \
          SSL_INC=" -I/usr/local/openssl11/include" \
          SSL_LIB=" -L/usr/local/openssl11/lib64 
-Wl,-rpath,/usr/local/openssl11/lib64" \
          ADDLIB="-ldl -lssl -lcrypto"
        make install

it builds/installs with no error

        which haproxy
                /usr/local/sbin/haproxy

and the linked libs are as intended,

        ldd /usr/local/sbin/haproxy | egrep "ssl|crypto"
                libssl.so.1.1 => /usr/local/openssl11/lib64/libssl.so.1.1 
(0x00007f071de04000)
                libcrypto.so.1.1 => /usr/local/openssl11/lib64/libcrypto.so.1.1 
(0x00007f071d969000)

but checking haproxy version,

        haproxy -vv
                HA-Proxy version 1.8.0 2017/11/26
                Copyright 2000-2017 Willy Tarreau <[email protected]>

                Build options :
                  TARGET  = linux2628
                ...
                  OPTIONS = USE_OPENSSL=1 USE_SYSTEMD=1 USE_PCRE2=1 
USE_PCRE2_JIT=1
                ...
                Built with OpenSSL version : OpenSSL 1.1.0h-fips  27 Mar 2018
                Running on OpenSSL version : OpenSSL 1.1.0h  27 Mar 2018
                OpenSSL library supports TLS extensions : yes
                OpenSSL library supports SNI : yes
                OpenSSL library supports : TLSv1.0 TLSv1.1 TLSv1.2
                ...

references the wrong "Built with" OpenSSL version, namely the system installed 
version,

        /usr/bin/openssl version
                OpenSSL 1.1.0h-fips  27 Mar 2018

instead of my specified build

        /usr/local/openssl11/bin/openssl version
                OpenSSL 1.1.0h  27 Mar 2018

As the ldd linked libs look ok, I suspect this is just an artifact of the 
version check making (incorrect) assumptions about runtime bin path ...

*IS* it just an artifact?  Or is it an indication of improper linking/use?


Reply via email to