Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:55:26 +0100 (MET), Solar Designer via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt * Wed Sep 25 2002 Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] rt - Don't do an explicit make build-shared, it's not needed and could only rt cause harm (link libssl against libcrypto statically), but luckily didn't; rt pointed out by Dmitry V. Levin of ALT Linux. Oh, you ran build-shared directly? OK, I can't exactly say what the results should have been, but I can't see anything good coming out of that. That target was never meant to be called directly. Perhaps I should have written some kind of warning to that effect. rt Basically, with 0.9.6d we used to do: rt rt # Check these against the DIRS= line and all target in top-level Makefile rt # when updating to a new version of OpenSSL; with 0.9.6d the Makefile says: rt # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools rt # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all rt make Makefile.ssl rt make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref rt make build-shared rt LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools rt rt Now this has changed to: rt rt # Check these against the DIRS= line and all target in top-level Makefile rt # when updating to a new version of OpenSSL; with 0.9.6g the Makefile says: rt # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools rt # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all rt make Makefile.ssl rt make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref rt LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools You do know, don't you, that you really have no need for rsaref any more? Anyhow, I will now consider this ticket resolved. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 07:55:26 +0100 (MET), Solar Designer via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt * Wed Sep 25 2002 Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] rt - Don't do an explicit make build-shared, it's not needed and could only rt cause harm (link libssl against libcrypto statically), but luckily didn't; rt pointed out by Dmitry V. Levin of ALT Linux. Oh, you ran build-shared directly? OK, I can't exactly say what the results should have been, but I can't see anything good coming out of that. That target was never meant to be called directly. Perhaps I should have written some kind of warning to that effect. rt Basically, with 0.9.6d we used to do: rt rt # Check these against the DIRS= line and all target in top-level Makefile rt # when updating to a new version of OpenSSL; with 0.9.6d the Makefile says: rt # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools rt # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all rt make Makefile.ssl rt make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref rt make build-shared rt LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools rt rt Now this has changed to: rt rt # Check these against the DIRS= line and all target in top-level Makefile rt # when updating to a new version of OpenSSL; with 0.9.6g the Makefile says: rt # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools rt # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all rt make Makefile.ssl rt make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref rt LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools You do know, don't you, that you really have no need for rsaref any more? Anyhow, I will now consider this ticket resolved. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:00:37PM +0100, Richard Levitte via RT wrote: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]: JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The openssl(1) binary wouldn't recognize any of the block ciphers. I tracked this down to the addition of -Wl,-Bsymbolic. Removing that option solved the problem for us. Hmm, if you, instead of removing that option, build and check the resulting library with 'nm', what exactly do you get? It's a mystery to me why things should go wrong for you. I've now tried removing the patch from our 0.9.6g package and what I get is: 1. Both versions appear to produce a working library now, however: 2. The sizes and symbol offsets in them differ: With -Wl,-Bsymbolic (original): -rwxr-xr-x root root 827429 Nov 15 09:28 /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 Without -Wl,-Bsymbolic (patched): -rwxr-xr-x root root 858309 Nov 15 09:40 /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 3. The sets of symbols (as reported by nm -a) are exactly the same. About the -Wl,-Bsymbolic problem, have you tried downloading a recent 0.9.6 snapshot and checked that the problem is still present? I haven't tried removing the patch from our package in further updates (to 0.9.6e and 0.9.6g), but have tried so now (see above). It does appear that the problem is gone, but I'd feel more comfortable knowing what made it go. One change to our package which could be relevant is this: * Wed Sep 25 2002 Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Don't do an explicit make build-shared, it's not needed and could only cause harm (link libssl against libcrypto statically), but luckily didn't; pointed out by Dmitry V. Levin of ALT Linux. Basically, with 0.9.6d we used to do: # Check these against the DIRS= line and all target in top-level Makefile # when updating to a new version of OpenSSL; with 0.9.6d the Makefile says: # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all make Makefile.ssl make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref make build-shared LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools Now this has changed to: # Check these against the DIRS= line and all target in top-level Makefile # when updating to a new version of OpenSSL; with 0.9.6g the Makefile says: # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all make Makefile.ssl make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools -- /sd __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:54:31 +0300, Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: solar I've now tried removing the patch from our 0.9.6g package and what I solar get is: solar solar 1. Both versions appear to produce a working library now, however: solar solar 2. The sizes and symbol offsets in them differ: solar solar With -Wl,-Bsymbolic (original): solar -rwxr-xr-x root root 827429 Nov 15 09:28 /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 solar solar Without -Wl,-Bsymbolic (patched): solar -rwxr-xr-x root root 858309 Nov 15 09:40 /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 Oh, about that, I'm not too surprised. Since -Bsymbolic gets the linker to resolve calls between modules within the shared library, the final relocation table will of course get smaller. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 09:54:31 +0300, Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: solar I've now tried removing the patch from our 0.9.6g package and what I solar get is: solar solar 1. Both versions appear to produce a working library now, however: solar solar 2. The sizes and symbol offsets in them differ: solar solar With -Wl,-Bsymbolic (original): solar -rwxr-xr-x root root 827429 Nov 15 09:28 /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 solar solar Without -Wl,-Bsymbolic (patched): solar -rwxr-xr-x root root 858309 Nov 15 09:40 /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 Oh, about that, I'm not too surprised. Since -Bsymbolic gets the linker to resolve calls between modules within the shared library, the final relocation table will of course get smaller. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 09:05:13AM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote: rt # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools rt # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all rt make Makefile.ssl rt make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref rt LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools You do know, don't you, that you really have no need for rsaref any more? Well, I left it in because the original Makefile would build it too. Is that just to support Configure rsaref? Anyhow, I will now consider this ticket resolved. OK. Thank you for getting back to me on this. I think I'll simplify our package a bit now, dropping the -Bsymbolic patch and building rsaref. -- /sd __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Fri, 15 Nov 2002 10:26:26 +0100 (MET), Solar Designer via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: rt Well, I left it in because the original Makefile would build it too. rt Is that just to support Configure rsaref? Yes. -- Richard Levitte \ Spannvägen 38, II \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Redakteur@Stacken \ S-168 35 BROMMA \ T: +46-8-26 52 47 \ SWEDEN \ or +46-708-26 53 44 Procurator Odiosus Ex Infernis-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Member of the OpenSSL development team: http://www.openssl.org/ Unsolicited commercial email is subject to an archival fee of $400. See http://www.stacken.kth.se/~levitte/mail/ for more info. __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 09:05:13AM +0100, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker via RT wrote: rt # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools rt # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all rt make Makefile.ssl rt make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref rt LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools You do know, don't you, that you really have no need for rsaref any more? Well, I left it in because the original Makefile would build it too. Is that just to support Configure rsaref? Anyhow, I will now consider this ticket resolved. OK. Thank you for getting back to me on this. I think I'll simplify our package a bit now, dropping the -Bsymbolic patch and building rsaref. -- /sd __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:00:37PM +0100, Richard Levitte via RT wrote: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]: JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The openssl(1) binary wouldn't recognize any of the block ciphers. I tracked this down to the addition of -Wl,-Bsymbolic. Removing that option solved the problem for us. Hmm, if you, instead of removing that option, build and check the resulting library with 'nm', what exactly do you get? It's a mystery to me why things should go wrong for you. I've now tried removing the patch from our 0.9.6g package and what I get is: 1. Both versions appear to produce a working library now, however: 2. The sizes and symbol offsets in them differ: With -Wl,-Bsymbolic (original): -rwxr-xr-x root root 827429 Nov 15 09:28 /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 Without -Wl,-Bsymbolic (patched): -rwxr-xr-x root root 858309 Nov 15 09:40 /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.0.9.6 3. The sets of symbols (as reported by nm -a) are exactly the same. About the -Wl,-Bsymbolic problem, have you tried downloading a recent 0.9.6 snapshot and checked that the problem is still present? I haven't tried removing the patch from our package in further updates (to 0.9.6e and 0.9.6g), but have tried so now (see above). It does appear that the problem is gone, but I'd feel more comfortable knowing what made it go. One change to our package which could be relevant is this: * Wed Sep 25 2002 Solar Designer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Don't do an explicit make build-shared, it's not needed and could only cause harm (link libssl against libcrypto statically), but luckily didn't; pointed out by Dmitry V. Levin of ALT Linux. Basically, with 0.9.6d we used to do: # Check these against the DIRS= line and all target in top-level Makefile # when updating to a new version of OpenSSL; with 0.9.6d the Makefile says: # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all make Makefile.ssl make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref make build-shared LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools Now this has changed to: # Check these against the DIRS= line and all target in top-level Makefile # when updating to a new version of OpenSSL; with 0.9.6g the Makefile says: # DIRS= crypto ssl rsaref $(SHLIB_MARK) apps test tools # all: clean-shared Makefile.ssl sub_all make Makefile.ssl make sub_all DIRS=crypto ssl rsaref LD_LIBRARY_PATH=`pwd` make sub_all DIRS=apps test tools -- /sd __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [openssl.org #29] -Wl,-Bsymbolic in 0.9.6d broke shared builds
Lutz Jaenicke via RT wrote: [[EMAIL PROTECTED] - Sun May 12 22:48:56 2002]: JFYI, when updating our package from 0.9.6c to 0.9.6d I've noticed that the new shared libcrypto library doesn't work anymore. The openssl(1) binary wouldn't recognize any of the block ciphers. I tracked this down to the addition of -Wl,-Bsymbolic. Removing that option solved the problem for us. This option has only recently been added. The comment in the commitlog says: Make shared libraries resolve global symbols within themselves first. Currently only on GNUish linkers... Submitted by Steven Bade [EMAIL PROTECTED] The issue was raised with respect to integration of a soft token using OpenSSL into iPlanet. Told you it was a bad idea. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit. - Robert Woodruff __ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
