Обсуждение: Show version of OpenSSL in ./configure output
Hi all, 5e4dacb9878c has reminded me that we don't show the version of OpenSSL in the output of ./configure. This would be useful to know when looking at issues within the buildfarm, and I've wanted that a few times. How about the attached to use the openssl command, if available, to display this information? Libraries may be installed while the command is not available, but in most cases I'd like to think that it is around, and it is less complex than using something like SSLeay_version() from libcrypto. meson already shows this information, so no additions are required there. Also, LibreSSL uses `openssl`, right? Thoughts or comments? -- Michael
Вложения
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> 5e4dacb9878c has reminded me that we don't show the version of OpenSSL
> in the output of ./configure. This would be useful to know when
> looking at issues within the buildfarm, and I've wanted that a few
> times.
+1, I've wished for that too. It's not 100% clear that whatever
openssl is in your PATH matches the libraries we select, but this
will get it right in most cases and it seems like about the right
level of effort.
+ pgac_openssl_version="$($OPENSSL version 2> /dev/null || echo no)"
Maybe "echo 'openssl not found'" would be better.
regards, tom lane
On Sun, Oct 22, 2023 at 08:34:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > +1, I've wished for that too. It's not 100% clear that whatever > openssl is in your PATH matches the libraries we select, but this > will get it right in most cases and it seems like about the right > level of effort. Yes, I don't reallt want to add more macros for the sake of this information. > + pgac_openssl_version="$($OPENSSL version 2> /dev/null || echo no)" > > Maybe "echo 'openssl not found'" would be better. Sure. -- Michael
Вложения
On 23.10.23 02:26, Michael Paquier wrote: > 5e4dacb9878c has reminded me that we don't show the version of OpenSSL > in the output of ./configure. This would be useful to know when > looking at issues within the buildfarm, and I've wanted that a few > times. > > How about the attached to use the openssl command, if available, to > display this information? Libraries may be installed while the > command is not available, but in most cases I'd like to think that it > is around, and it is less complex than using something like > SSLeay_version() from libcrypto. > > meson already shows this information, so no additions are required > there. Also, LibreSSL uses `openssl`, right? The problem is that the binary might not match the library, so this could be very misleading. Also, meson gets the version via pkg-config, so the result would also be inconsistent with meson. I am afraid this approach would be unreliable in the really interesting cases. > + # Print version of OpenSSL, if command is available. > + AC_ARG_VAR(OPENSSL, [path to openssl command]) > + PGAC_PATH_PROGS(OPENSSL, openssl) There is already a call like this in configure.ac, so (if this approach is taken) you should rearrange things to make use of that one. > + pgac_openssl_version="$($OPENSSL version 2> /dev/null || echo no)" > + AC_MSG_NOTICE([using openssl $pgac_openssl_version])
> On 23 Oct 2023, at 08:22, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 23.10.23 02:26, Michael Paquier wrote: >> 5e4dacb9878c has reminded me that we don't show the version of OpenSSL >> in the output of ./configure. This would be useful to know when >> looking at issues within the buildfarm, and I've wanted that a few >> times. Many +1's, this has been on my TODO for some time but has never bubbled to the top. Thanks for working on this. >> How about the attached to use the openssl command, if available, to >> display this information? Libraries may be installed while the >> command is not available, but in most cases I'd like to think that it >> is around, and it is less complex than using something like >> SSLeay_version() from libcrypto. >> meson already shows this information, so no additions are required >> there. Also, LibreSSL uses `openssl`, right? > > The problem is that the binary might not match the library, so this could be very misleading. Also, meson gets the versionvia pkg-config, so the result would also be inconsistent with meson. I am afraid this approach would be unreliablein the really interesting cases. I tend to agree with this, it would be preferrable to be consistent with meson if possible/feasible. -- Daniel Gustafsson
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> On 23 Oct 2023, at 08:22, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> The problem is that the binary might not match the library, so this could be very misleading. Also, meson gets the
versionvia pkg-config, so the result would also be inconsistent with meson. I am afraid this approach would be
unreliablein the really interesting cases.
> I tend to agree with this, it would be preferrable to be consistent with meson
> if possible/feasible.
The configure script doesn't use pkg-config to find OpenSSL, so that
would also risk a misleading result. I'm inclined to guess that
believing "openssl version" would be less likely to give a wrong
answer than believing "pkg-config --modversion openssl". The former
amounts to assuming that your PATH is consistent with whatever you
set as the include and library search paths. The latter, well,
hasn't got any principle at all, because we aren't consulting
pkg-config for this.
Also, since "PGAC_PATH_PROGS(OPENSSL, openssl)" prints the full path
to what it found, you can at least tell after the fact that you
are being misled, because you can cross-check that path against
the -L switches being used for libraries. I don't think there's
any equivalent sanity check available for what pkg-config tells us,
if we're not consulting that for the library location.
meson.build may be fine here --- I suppose the reason that gets
the version via pkg-config is that it also gets other build details
from there. It's slightly worrisome that the autoconf and meson
build systems might choose different openssl installations, but
that's possibly true of lots of our dependencies.
Another angle worth considering is that "openssl version" provides
more information. On my RHEL8 box:
$ pkg-config --modversion openssl
1.1.1k
$ openssl version
OpenSSL 1.1.1k FIPS 25 Mar 2021
On my laptop using MacPorts:
$ pkg-config --modversion openssl
3.1.3
$ openssl version
OpenSSL 3.1.3 19 Sep 2023 (Library: OpenSSL 3.1.3 19 Sep 2023)
regards, tom lane
On 23.10.23 16:26, Tom Lane wrote: > Also, since "PGAC_PATH_PROGS(OPENSSL, openssl)" prints the full path to > what it found, you can at least tell after the fact that you are being > misled, because you can cross-check that path against the -L switches > being used for libraries. Yeah, that seems ok.
> On 23 Oct 2023, at 18:06, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: > > On 23.10.23 16:26, Tom Lane wrote: >> Also, since "PGAC_PATH_PROGS(OPENSSL, openssl)" prints the full path to what it found, you can at least tell after thefact that you are being misled, because you can cross-check that path against the -L switches being used for libraries. > > Yeah, that seems ok. +1, all good points raised, thanks! -- Daniel Gustafsson
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 06:06:02PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 23.10.23 16:26, Tom Lane wrote: >> Also, since "PGAC_PATH_PROGS(OPENSSL, openssl)" prints the full path to >> what it found, you can at least tell after the fact that you are being >> misled, because you can cross-check that path against the -L switches >> being used for libraries. > > Yeah, that seems ok. FWIW, I was also contemplating this one yesterday: +PKG_CHECK_MODULES(OPENSSL, openssl) Still, when I link my builds to a custom OpenSSL one, I force PATH to point to a command of openssl related to the libs used so PGAC_PATH_PROGS is more useful. I guess that everybody here does the same. It could be of course possible to show both the command from PATH and from pkg-config, but that's just confusing IMO. There may be a point in doing the same for other commands like LZ4 and Zstandard but these have been less of a pain in the buildfarm, even if we don't use them for that long, so I cannot get excited about spending more ./configure cycles for these. Please find attached a patch to move the version call close to the existing PGAC_PATH_PROGS. And of course, I'd like to do a backpatch. Is that OK? -- Michael
Вложения
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Please find attached a patch to move the version call close to the
> existing PGAC_PATH_PROGS. And of course, I'd like to do a backpatch.
> Is that OK?
OK by me.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 08:44:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > OK by me. Cool, done down to 16 as this depends on c8e4030d1bdd. -- Michael