Re: disabled SSL log_like tests
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: disabled SSL log_like tests |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3248136.1746592452@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: disabled SSL log_like tests (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: disabled SSL log_like tests
Re: disabled SSL log_like tests |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 1:18 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Anyone know anything about where to submit LibreSSL bugs? > I think it's done with sendbug on an OpenBSD box, or perhaps you can > just write a normal email to the bugs@openbsd.org or > libressl@openbsd.org list, based on: > https://www.openbsd.org/mail.html Thanks, I'll look into reporting it tomorrow. In the meantime, I couldn't help noticing that the backtraces went through lib/libssl/tls13_legacy.c, which doesn't give a warm feeling about how supported they think our usage is (and perhaps also explains why they didn't detect this bug themselves). This is evidently because we set up the SSL context with SSLv23_method(), per this comment in be_tls_init(): * We use SSLv23_method() because it can negotiate use of the highest * mutually supported protocol version, while alternatives like * TLSv1_2_method() permit only one specific version. Note that we don't * actually allow SSL v2 or v3, only TLS protocols (see below). This choice seems to be more than 20 years old, though the above comment defending it dates only to 2014. I wonder if it's time to revisit that idea. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: