Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 12:07:34PM -0500, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Andy Polyakov wrote: > > > Regarding general use of other libraries, please think carefully before > > > voting, 'cause this *is* tricky. If you have a look, you will see that we > > > *currently* depend on certain standard libraries, such as, for example, > > > libdl. > > > > One has to recognize that each dependency has to be justified. Sometimes > > you don't have a choice. For example if you want to talk network on > > Solaris, you have to link with -lsocket -lnsl. It's just part of the > > game. But in cases one has a choice, well, one has a choice to *make*. > > And key question is how do you anchor it. It's only natural to have as > > little dependencies as possible, so question is what would justify extra > > dependency. > > Taking off on a bit of a tangent, how much justification did we go > through when adding pthreads as a dependency. I have not been > following very much (Kurt would know more), but apparently in Debian > there are some issues regarding (statically linked?) applications > and libraries that use libcrypto but do not explicitly link with > -pthread. "Issues" here being, IIRC, crashes at runtime. I haven't really followed it, I just saw some mentionng of it on IRC. At least static linkig glibc itself is complicated. I guess it's also complicated because libc itself contains stubs for the pthread functions, so at least the order of the libraries will be important when linking staticly. But I didn't read anything about crashes, I might have missed things. Kurt ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:19:48PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: > Regarding general use of other libraries, please think carefully before > voting, 'cause this *is* tricky. If you have a look, you will see that we > *currently* depend on certain standard libraries, such as, for example, > libdl. And perhaps we should also mention the pile of libraries used with > windows. We also started depending on pthread in 1.1.0 ... Kurt ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
> On Jun 7, 2018, at 3:59 PM, Salz, Rich wrote: > > If B<-pass8bit> is given, the password is taken to be encoded in the current > locale, but is still used directly. > A future release might automatically convert the password to valid UTF-8 > encoding if this flag is given. I would propose that "-pass8bit" means that each byte of the input is a unicode code point value (i.e. ASCII or LATIN1 supplement) and we'll convert to UCS-2 by prepending 0x00 to each one. If so, I would expect this flag to NOT ever change its meaning. We may internally convert to UTF-8 and then to UTF-16 largely undoing the first conversion, but that just internal API gymnastics, not user- observable. -- Viktor. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
Here is proposed documentation for what I am suggesting. =item B<-passutf8>, B<-pass8bit> These flags indicate the character set encoding on the password value. By default, non-ASCII characters are rejected. This is new to OpenSSL 1.1.1, and is used to enforce complains with the PKCS#12 standard. If B<-passutf8> is given, then the password is taken to be valid UTF-8 encoding, and will be used directly. If B<-pass8bit> is given, the password is taken to be encoded in the current locale, but is still used directly. A future release might automatically convert the password to valid UTF-8 encoding if this flag is given. On 6/7/18, 3:42 PM, "Salz, Rich" wrote: >So even rejecting correctly encoded utf-8? I think you forgot that this is not what I suggested. One flag indicates it's utf-8 encoded, don't touch it. The other flag indicates it might have high-bit chars, don't touch it. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
>So even rejecting correctly encoded utf-8? I think you forgot that this is not what I suggested. One flag indicates it's utf-8 encoded, don't touch it. The other flag indicates it might have high-bit chars, don't touch it. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
"Salz, Rich" skrev: (7 juni 2018 21:29:40 CEST) >>My main concern is that currently, openssl pkcs12 may create >broken pkcs12 files (because it misinterprets the pass phrase when >constructing a BMPString), and doesn't notify the user at all (doesn't >even check). > > >For those who haven't reada the PR and all its comments, I propose that >we reject non-ASCII input unless one of two flags is set. This >prevents us from unknowingly making the situation worse, and does not >break interop with our installed base. So even rejecting correctly encoded utf-8? -- Skickat från min Android-enhet med K-9 Mail. Ursäkta min fåordighet. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
>My main concern is that currently, openssl pkcs12 may create broken pkcs12 > files (because it misinterprets the pass phrase when constructing a > BMPString), and doesn't notify the user at all (doesn't even check). For those who haven't reada the PR and all its comments, I propose that we reject non-ASCII input unless one of two flags is set. This prevents us from unknowingly making the situation worse, and does not break interop with our installed base. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
Viktor Dukhovni skrev: (7 juni 2018 21:16:53 CEST) >On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 09:01:15PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: > >> We don't have to answer the question "how high" now. I'm fully >> prepared to have the use of iconv limited to platforms where we know >> it's available (for example, we - or well, *I* - know that VMS has >the >> iconv API in the C RTL, not even any need to link with any extra >> library... and we *know* it's available in glibc since version >> 2.something). I'm fully prepared to have to deal with people saying >> "hey, we have that too!" and having to edit config targets as we go. >> I do not expect any support of iconv to cover more than what we can >> test or get patches for, as with anything else. > >There's also apparently some variation in the iconv API function >prototypes (possibly "const char **" vs. "char **"). So some >platform-dependent casting may be required... > >My peers suggest that this late in the release cycle, we leave the >responsibility of ensuring UTF-8 input to the user. We could >describe work-arounds in documentation. Personally, if this is >off by default, and requires a new option to enable, and is just >in openssl(1) and not libcrypto, I'm disinclined to say "no" until >I see a PR (with documentation) that we can decide to leave for >post 1.1.1 or adopt. Please review doc/man7/passphrase-encoding.pod My main concern is that currently, openssl pkcs12 may create broken pkcs12 files (because it misinterprets the pass phrase when constructing a BMPString), and doesn't notify the user at all (doesn't even check). Cheers Richard -- Skickat från min Android-enhet med K-9 Mail. Ursäkta min fåordighet. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
> It already isn't. Depending on your regional settings, a passphrase isn't > always encoded the same way. So no, not a first. That is *different.* That is a user setting changing behavior. This would be the exact same executable, and even user settings, doing different things. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
"Salz, Rich" skrev: (7 juni 2018 21:09:55 CEST) >>We don't have to answer the question "how high" now. I'm fully > prepared to have the use of iconv limited to platforms where we know >it's available > >That then means that the pkcs12 program is not compatible in behavior >across platforms. This would be a first, for us. It already isn't. Depending on your regional settings, a passphrase isn't always encoded the same way. So no, not a first. -- Skickat från min Android-enhet med K-9 Mail. Ursäkta min fåordighet. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 09:01:15PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: > We don't have to answer the question "how high" now. I'm fully > prepared to have the use of iconv limited to platforms where we know > it's available (for example, we - or well, *I* - know that VMS has the > iconv API in the C RTL, not even any need to link with any extra > library... and we *know* it's available in glibc since version > 2.something). I'm fully prepared to have to deal with people saying > "hey, we have that too!" and having to edit config targets as we go. > I do not expect any support of iconv to cover more than what we can > test or get patches for, as with anything else. There's also apparently some variation in the iconv API function prototypes (possibly "const char **" vs. "char **"). So some platform-dependent casting may be required... My peers suggest that this late in the release cycle, we leave the responsibility of ensuring UTF-8 input to the user. We could describe work-arounds in documentation. Personally, if this is off by default, and requires a new option to enable, and is just in openssl(1) and not libcrypto, I'm disinclined to say "no" until I see a PR (with documentation) that we can decide to leave for post 1.1.1 or adopt. -- Viktor. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
>We don't have to answer the question "how high" now. I'm fully prepared to have the use of iconv limited to platforms where we know it's available That then means that the pkcs12 program is not compatible in behavior across platforms. This would be a first, for us. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
In message on Thu, 7 Jun 2018 16:58:20 +0200, Andy Polyakov said: appro> One can argue that iconv was actually standardized, and in such appro> case it would be appropriate to make it conditional on appro> _POSIX_VERSION. [Though it doesn't seem to be part of pull appro> request in question. Why not?] But as far as _POSIX_VERSION appro> goes, we kind of know that some systems by *default* offer appro> lower version, presumably in order to facilitate backward appro> portability. [about why not: because I was unsure how _POSIX_SOURCE is defined... having seen too many places where the user (i.e. us) gets to define that macro to get desired features. I've read up since, so expect a change that uses this macro] appro> So that it would mean that we would have to explicitly rise the appro> bar in some cases. Which ones? And how high? This brings us to appro> following question. Is *this* actually right moment to appro> introduce that kind of *multi-variable* problem? In other words appro> the problem kind of has two sides: a) principal, to do or not appro> to do; b) *when* would it be appropriate to start, is minor appro> release right moment? Is b) part of the vote? We don't have to answer the question "how high" now. I'm fully prepared to have the use of iconv limited to platforms where we know it's available (for example, we - or well, *I* - know that VMS has the iconv API in the C RTL, not even any need to link with any extra library... and we *know* it's available in glibc since version 2.something). I'm fully prepared to have to deal with people saying "hey, we have that too!" and having to edit config targets as we go. I do not expect any support of iconv to cover more than what we can test or get patches for, as with anything else. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
In message on Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:56:00 -0400, Viktor Dukhovni said: openssl-users> openssl-users> openssl-users> > On Jun 7, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Richard Levitte wrote: openssl-users> > openssl-users> > Regarding general use of other libraries, please openssl-users> > think carefully before voting, 'cause this *is* openssl-users> > tricky. If you have a look, you will see that we openssl-users> > *currently* depend on certain standard libraries, openssl-users> > such as, for example, libdl. And perhaps we should openssl-users> > also mention the pile of libraries used with openssl-users> > windows. openssl-users> > openssl-users> > In my mind, this makes that more general vote openssl-users> > ridiculous, but the matter was brought up to me, and openssl-users> > I wasn't going to ignore it, no matter what my openssl-users> > personal feelings are. openssl-users> openssl-users> My concern is not so much whether a dependency on libiconv in libcrypto openssl-users> should be allowed, but rather wether we actually need it. I rather openssl-users> think that all codepage conversions should be the application's job. openssl-users> openssl-users> Thus, it is OK for *apps* where we prompt for passwords to support openssl-users> conversion to UTF-8, perhaps via libiconv. So I see /usr/bin/openssl openssl-users> linked against the iconv API (which is, for example, in libc on NetBSD openssl-users> and FreeBSD, and does not require a separate library). We probably openssl-users> require libiconv for "openssl pkcs12" to work correctly, but the openssl-users> dependency should IMHO be in apps not libcrypto. Yup, and I did hear you in that other thread. Your argument about having OSSL_STORE be at liberty to *expect* UTF-8 without having to check for it made sense to me, and I did move the check and possible conversion to the application (i.e. 'openssl pkcs12'). That's what the PR I pointed at is all about. -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
In message on Thu, 7 Jun 2018 17:55:27 +0200, Andy Polyakov said: appro> > Regarding general use of other libraries, please think carefully before voting, 'cause this *is* tricky. If you have a look, you will see that we *currently* depend on certain standard libraries, such as, for example, libdl. appro> appro> One has to recognize that each dependency has to be justified. Yes, of course. Caution is advisable, always. appro> > And perhaps we should also mention the pile of libraries used with windows. appro> appro> It's not about amount, but ubiquity and stability. Windows is bad appro> example in the context, because it's rather "mono-cultural" environment. Yes, you're right, and I didn't really mean to make a serious argument about the amount, just pointing out that we already rely on standard / system libraries. appro> But *otherwise* thing is that we already *know* that those extra appro> libraries work. Or at least know what to expect and how to deal with appro> them on different platforms. They were effectively proven to work by appro> lasting through several releases and years-long bug ironing. This *is* appro> factor too. And that's what made me pose "is b) part of vote" in my last appro> post. I'll have you note that the PR that I'm pointing at still has an open question about how to deal with the problem of some systems not reliably support iconv. -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
>Taking off on a bit of a tangent, how much justification did we go through when adding pthreads as a dependency. It's an optional, but enabled by default, dependency which is different. We had a lot of discussion within what was then openssl-team. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:55:27PM +0200, Andy Polyakov wrote: > > Regarding general use of other libraries, please think carefully before > > voting, 'cause this *is* tricky. If you have a look, you will see that we > > *currently* depend on certain standard libraries, such as, for example, > > libdl. > > One has to recognize that each dependency has to be justified. Sometimes > you don't have a choice. For example if you want to talk network on > Solaris, you have to link with -lsocket -lnsl. It's just part of the > game. But in cases one has a choice, well, one has a choice to *make*. > And key question is how do you anchor it. It's only natural to have as > little dependencies as possible, so question is what would justify extra > dependency. Taking off on a bit of a tangent, how much justification did we go through when adding pthreads as a dependency. I have not been following very much (Kurt would know more), but apparently in Debian there are some issues regarding (statically linked?) applications and libraries that use libcrypto but do not explicitly link with -pthread. "Issues" here being, IIRC, crashes at runtime. -Ben ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] Votes on the use of other libraries in general and iconv in particular
On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 05:09:52PM +0200, Richard Levitte wrote: > Mm, I was thinking about it, but then, we have already discussed this in > circles on github. I do not follow everything on github, I had no idea that this was being discussed. Someone might have convinced you that it's not the right vote, or that the wording could be improved. Kurt ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
> On Jun 7, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Richard Levitte wrote: > > Regarding general use of other libraries, please think carefully before > voting, 'cause this *is* tricky. If you have a look, you will see that we > *currently* depend on certain standard libraries, such as, for example, > libdl. And perhaps we should also mention the pile of libraries used with > windows. > > In my mind, this makes that more general vote ridiculous, but the matter was > brought up to me, and I wasn't going to ignore it, no matter what my personal > feelings are. My concern is not so much whether a dependency on libiconv in libcrypto should be allowed, but rather wether we actually need it. I rather think that all codepage conversions should be the application's job. Thus, it is OK for *apps* where we prompt for passwords to support conversion to UTF-8, perhaps via libiconv. So I see /usr/bin/openssl linked against the iconv API (which is, for example, in libc on NetBSD and FreeBSD, and does not require a separate library). We probably require libiconv for "openssl pkcs12" to work correctly, but the dependency should IMHO be in apps not libcrypto. -- Viktor. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
> Regarding general use of other libraries, please think carefully before > voting, 'cause this *is* tricky. If you have a look, you will see that we > *currently* depend on certain standard libraries, such as, for example, libdl. One has to recognize that each dependency has to be justified. Sometimes you don't have a choice. For example if you want to talk network on Solaris, you have to link with -lsocket -lnsl. It's just part of the game. But in cases one has a choice, well, one has a choice to *make*. And key question is how do you anchor it. It's only natural to have as little dependencies as possible, so question is what would justify extra dependency. > And perhaps we should also mention the pile of libraries used with windows. It's not about amount, but ubiquity and stability. Windows is bad example in the context, because it's rather "mono-cultural" environment. But *otherwise* thing is that we already *know* that those extra libraries work. Or at least know what to expect and how to deal with them on different platforms. They were effectively proven to work by lasting through several releases and years-long bug ironing. This *is* factor too. And that's what made me pose "is b) part of vote" in my last post. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
Regarding general use of other libraries, please think carefully before voting, 'cause this *is* tricky. If you have a look, you will see that we *currently* depend on certain standard libraries, such as, for example, libdl. And perhaps we should also mention the pile of libraries used with windows. In my mind, this makes that more general vote ridiculous, but the matter was brought up to me, and I wasn't going to ignore it, no matter what my personal feelings are. Cheers Richard Richard Levitte skrev: (7 juni 2018 13:54:11 CEST) >Hi, > >This PR has been blocked, forcing a vote: > >https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6392 > >Background: we have been sloppy when producing PKCS#12 files, creating >objects that aren't interoperable. This can only happen with non-UTF8 >input methods, so this PR adds a higher level of control in the >openssl application, so that it will do the best it can to make sure a >pass phrase encoded with something other than UTF-8 gets correctly >re-encoded, and failing that, try and make the user aware that they >are about to create a non-interoperable object. This triggered the >use of the iconv API, and in the case of Mac OS/X, the use of the >separate libiconv library. > >I'm going to make this into two votes, as both topics have come out >because of this. > >1. A vote about general use of other libraries, limited to standard > system libraries, which may be platform dependent (I expect > libiconv on Mac OS/X to be such a library) > >2. A vote about the use of the iconv API > >Please discuss here, no in the vote threads. > >Cheers, >Richard -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] Votes on the use of other libraries in general and iconv in particular
Mm, I was thinking about it, but then, we have already discussed this in circles on github. Besides, those are two week votes, and I now realised I did a procedural error when settling a closed date (what the hell was I thinking?). But still, that gives two weeks before the vote has to be concluded, does that not allow discussion? Has that ever stopped us from discussing before? Cheers Richard "Salz, Rich" skrev: (7 juni 2018 16:51:30 CEST) >I am disappointed that no time was allowed for discussion. > >On 6/7/18, 8:38 AM, "Richard Levitte" wrote: > >Hi, > >as promised, I've create two votes: > >-- > topic: We can use other standard / system libraries, per config target > A current example is using libiconv on Mac OS/X. We will be > cautious in doing so in the libraries, and are more free to do > so in applications. >Proposed by Richard Levitte >Public: yes >opened: 2018-06-07 >closed: 2018-06-21 >-- >topic: We can use the iconv API in our applications >Proposed by Richard Levitte >Public: yes >opened: 2018-06-07 >closed: 2018-06-21 >-- > >The vote tallies will be presented here when the votes are closed. > >Cheers, >Richard > >-- >Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org >OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ >___ >openssl-project mailing list >openssl-project@openssl.org >https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project > > >___ >openssl-project mailing list >openssl-project@openssl.org >https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
> This PR has been blocked, forcing a vote: > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6392 > > Background: we have been sloppy when producing PKCS#12 files, creating > objects that aren't interoperable. This can only happen with non-UTF8 > input methods, so this PR adds a higher level of control in the > openssl application, so that it will do the best it can to make sure a > pass phrase encoded with something other than UTF-8 gets correctly > re-encoded, and failing that, try and make the user aware that they > are about to create a non-interoperable object. This triggered the > use of the iconv API, and in the case of Mac OS/X, the use of the > separate libiconv library. I find the reference to Mac OS X a bit misleading, because it suggests that assessment was made on limited amount of data points. Basically on how does it look on *contemporary* Linux/Unix platforms and Mac OS X. But question runs deeper than that and should cover all platform that we consider supporting. Which covers even ranges of older versions, in sense that judging on latest version alone is hardly sufficient. For example do we know *when* was libiconv introduced to Mac OS X? One can naturally say that we are not obliged to care about *that* old versions, but this is no excuse for not making thorougher assessment? I mean it's only appropriate if we can answer the question how old does system have to be for us to say "we don't care". And same question applies even to other platforms, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Android, Cygwin, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, DJGPP, Tru64, IRIX, ... One can argue that iconv was actually standardized, and in such case it would be appropriate to make it conditional on _POSIX_VERSION. [Though it doesn't seem to be part of pull request in question. Why not?] But as far as _POSIX_VERSION goes, we kind of know that some systems by *default* offer lower version, presumably in order to facilitate backward portability. So that it would mean that we would have to explicitly rise the bar in some cases. Which ones? And how high? This brings us to following question. Is *this* actually right moment to introduce that kind of *multi-variable* problem? In other words the problem kind of has two sides: a) principal, to do or not to do; b) *when* would it be appropriate to start, is minor release right moment? Is b) part of the vote? ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
I see you already started the votes. No time for discussion? I think OpenSSL should be a "fundamental" system library. Perhaps the apps are different, but it should not require new libraries but could use them if available -- either at run-time or via config/build. I think iconv in particular is a bad thing to require at this time, in a 1.1.1 release. It's not clear to me that it meets our API/ABI compatibility guarantee. I also dislike iconv because of its size, the fact that it is a gross collection of hacks -- not its fault, it's the nature of charsets -- and that it is not universal. This means that apps that "do the right thing" on some platforms, will FAIL to do so on opthers. It is very very late in the release process to be adding a new dependency. Finally, I believe that for this particular issue, we can add an API that enables applications to do the right thing, and we can add flags and warnings to the command-line that make it more clear when a user isn't doing the right thing (such as because they have existing files they need to read). VOTE NO. On 6/7/18, 8:04 AM, "Richard Levitte" wrote: Hi, This PR has been blocked, forcing a vote: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6392 Background: we have been sloppy when producing PKCS#12 files, creating objects that aren't interoperable. This can only happen with non-UTF8 input methods, so this PR adds a higher level of control in the openssl application, so that it will do the best it can to make sure a pass phrase encoded with something other than UTF-8 gets correctly re-encoded, and failing that, try and make the user aware that they are about to create a non-interoperable object. This triggered the use of the iconv API, and in the case of Mac OS/X, the use of the separate libiconv library. I'm going to make this into two votes, as both topics have come out because of this. 1. A vote about general use of other libraries, limited to standard system libraries, which may be platform dependent (I expect libiconv on Mac OS/X to be such a library) 2. A vote about the use of the iconv API Please discuss here, no in the vote threads. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] Votes on the use of other libraries in general and iconv in particular
I am disappointed that no time was allowed for discussion. On 6/7/18, 8:38 AM, "Richard Levitte" wrote: Hi, as promised, I've create two votes: -- topic: We can use other standard / system libraries, per config target A current example is using libiconv on Mac OS/X. We will be cautious in doing so in the libraries, and are more free to do so in applications. Proposed by Richard Levitte Public: yes opened: 2018-06-07 closed: 2018-06-21 -- topic: We can use the iconv API in our applications Proposed by Richard Levitte Public: yes opened: 2018-06-07 closed: 2018-06-21 -- The vote tallies will be presented here when the votes are closed. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
[openssl-project] Votes on the use of other libraries in general and iconv in particular
Hi, as promised, I've create two votes: -- topic: We can use other standard / system libraries, per config target A current example is using libiconv on Mac OS/X. We will be cautious in doing so in the libraries, and are more free to do so in applications. Proposed by Richard Levitte Public: yes opened: 2018-06-07 closed: 2018-06-21 -- topic: We can use the iconv API in our applications Proposed by Richard Levitte Public: yes opened: 2018-06-07 closed: 2018-06-21 -- The vote tallies will be presented here when the votes are closed. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
[openssl-project] To use or not use the iconv API, and to use or not use other libraries
Hi, This PR has been blocked, forcing a vote: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/6392 Background: we have been sloppy when producing PKCS#12 files, creating objects that aren't interoperable. This can only happen with non-UTF8 input methods, so this PR adds a higher level of control in the openssl application, so that it will do the best it can to make sure a pass phrase encoded with something other than UTF-8 gets correctly re-encoded, and failing that, try and make the user aware that they are about to create a non-interoperable object. This triggered the use of the iconv API, and in the case of Mac OS/X, the use of the separate libiconv library. I'm going to make this into two votes, as both topics have come out because of this. 1. A vote about general use of other libraries, limited to standard system libraries, which may be platform dependent (I expect libiconv on Mac OS/X to be such a library) 2. A vote about the use of the iconv API Please discuss here, no in the vote threads. Cheers, Richard -- Richard Levitte levi...@openssl.org OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
