Re: [openssl-project] FW: April Crypto Bulletin from Cryptosense
On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 04:23:02PM +0200, Andy Polyakov wrote: > > This is one reason why keeping around old assembly code can have a cost. :( > > > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5320 > > There is nothing I can add to what I've already said. To quote myself. > "None of what I say means that everything *has to* be kept, but as > already said, some of them serve meaningful purpose..." > > Well, I also said that "I'm *not* saying that bit-rot is not a concern, > only that it's not really assembly-specific." And I can probably add > something here, in addition to already mentioned example of legacy code > relying on formally undefined or implementation-specific behaviour. It's > not actually that uncommon that *new* C code is committed[!!!] > "bit-rotten". So one can *just as well* say that supporting another > operating system has a cost, and so does using another compiler... Why > not get "angry" about that? What's the difference really? Relevant Yes, supporting another operating system has a cost! At risk of drawing Richard's ire, if we did not intend to support (e.g.) VMS, we might have been able to get away with not writing our own custom build system in favor of some "industry standard". Supporting non-POSIX systems (e.g., Windows) also adds overhead in how we implement many of our interfaces (file handling, thread handling, locking, randomness, etc.). I personally prefer a more conservative/restrictive approach than the historical trend, and probably also more conservative than the average of the team. This is presumably shaped by my personal experiences and career trajectory, and I understand that others' path are different and so they will have different, but still valid, preferences. We as a team are charged with weighing the tradeoff of supporting an additional platform against the burden of supporting it and the risks against our ability to continue supporting it. For example, in this modern world where properly supporting a platform basically does require some assembly code, for crypto-relevant timing considerations, if only one person understands and will support that assembly code, that is a risk. Perhaps it's enough of a risk to make officially supporting that platform a bad idea; perhaps not -- it's just one factor that we must, as a whole, weigh and consider. Removing platform-specific assembly when not needed for security would seem to reduce the risk, and presumably improve the maintainability of the software as a whole. But I don't see a good way to not have these decisions all be made on a case-by-case basis. -Ben ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] FW: April Crypto Bulletin from Cryptosense
> This is one reason why keeping around old assembly code can have a cost. :( > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5320 There is nothing I can add to what I've already said. To quote myself. "None of what I say means that everything *has to* be kept, but as already said, some of them serve meaningful purpose..." Well, I also said that "I'm *not* saying that bit-rot is not a concern, only that it's not really assembly-specific." And I can probably add something here, in addition to already mentioned example of legacy code relying on formally undefined or implementation-specific behaviour. It's not actually that uncommon that *new* C code is committed[!!!] "bit-rotten". So one can *just as well* say that supporting another operating system has a cost, and so does using another compiler... Why not get "angry" about that? What's the difference really? Relevant question is what's more expensive, supporting multiple compilers? multiple OSes? multiple assembly? To give a "tangible" example in the context of forwarded message [that mentions PA-RISC assembly code.] How long time did it take me to figure out what's wrong and verify that problem is resolved? Couple of hours (mostly because old systems are slw and it takes time to compile our stuff). How long time did it take me to resolve HP-UX problems triggered by report on 20th of March? I'm presumably[!] done by about now... To summarize, one can make same argument about multiple things, yet we do them. Why? Because it works to our advantage [directly or indirectly]... ___ openssl-project mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project
Re: [openssl-project] build broken?
On 05/04/18 20:13, Salz, Rich wrote: > I thought someone else would beat me to it. Like, maybe, the person who > broke things :) > > But the fix is part of 5886 which you approved and I am merging now ... Oops! Sorry :-) The fix needs to go into 1.1.0 too to keep the numbers consistent: https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5892 Matt > > On 4/5/18, 3:12 PM, "Richard Levitte"wrote: > > So, uhmmm, why didn't you make a PR from this? > > In message on Thu, 5 > Apr 2018 17:18:13 +, "Salz, Rich" said: > > rsalz> Making update > rsalz> CONF function code 122 collision at CONF_F_SSL_MODULE_INIT > rsalz> > rsalz> diff --git a/crypto/err/openssl.txt b/crypto/err/openssl.txt > rsalz> index d1cc039..de3dacc 100644 > rsalz> --- a/crypto/err/openssl.txt > rsalz> +++ b/crypto/err/openssl.txt > rsalz> @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ CONF_F_NCONF_LOAD_BIO:110:NCONF_load_bio > rsalz> CONF_F_NCONF_LOAD_FP:114:NCONF_load_fp > rsalz> CONF_F_NCONF_NEW:111:NCONF_new > rsalz> CONF_F_PROCESS_INCLUDE:116:process_include > rsalz> -CONF_F_SSL_MODULE_INIT:122:ssl_module_init > rsalz> +CONF_F_SSL_MODULE_INIT:123:ssl_module_init > rsalz> CONF_F_STR_COPY:101:str_copy > rsalz> CRYPTO_F_CRYPTO_DUP_EX_DATA:110:CRYPTO_dup_ex_data > rsalz> CRYPTO_F_CRYPTO_FREE_EX_DATA:111:CRYPTO_free_ex_data > ___ > 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 mailing list openssl-project@openssl.org https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-project