Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 02:22:37 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 212149] security/strongswan: Runtime failures with LibreSSL Message-ID: <bug-212149-13-nwuiBq0s1n@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-212149-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-212149-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D212149 dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #182037|0 |1 is obsolete| | --- Comment #17 from dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au --- Created attachment 182070 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=3D182070&action= =3Dedit libressl Makefile patch - helps migration to libressl Bernard, Thanks for your help. After a few more iterations, of chasing my tail with patches, I decided that this game had to end. I hacked /usr/include/openssl/opensslv.h #define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER 0x1000107fL /* openssl at time of libressl f= ork */ /* #define OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER 0x20000000L Just to test if strong= swan will ever work!*/ and for good measure "ln -s /usr/local/include/openssl /usr/include/openssl= ". I moved my working copies of strongswan and hostapd; svnlite pulled the latest and rebuilt. I've added my patch to the libressl Makefile, which I've included (discard = my CFLAGS change as that is local. I only use/tested on amd64, hence the constraint. Result strongswan 5.5.2, and other problematic ports: freeradius3, haproxy and hos= tapd 2.6 all built cleanly and preliminary testing looks positive. Perhaps not a long-term solution, and I'm sure we need to get this fixed for the long haul. My realistic expectation - ALL upstream applications that use openssl 1.0.X internals in their source, are going to need to change/'hack around' to accomodate the new openssl 1.1.x (opaque) structures. At which point we'll need to address properly, but until openssl 1.0.x retires &/or libressl changes significantly we "should" be ok until then.=20=20 For me, the key trigger for change will be, who actually provides safe ECC,= but that's another story. ;) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-212149-13-nwuiBq0s1n>