crypto/openssl: do not build useless workaround
Checks
Commit Message
This workaround was needed before version 1.0.1f. Do not build it for
versions >= 1.1.
Fixes: d61f70b4c918 ("crypto/libcrypto: add driver for OpenSSL library")
Signed-off-by: Didier Pallard <didier.pallard@6wind.com>
Cc: stable@dpdk.org
---
drivers/crypto/openssl/rte_openssl_pmd.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Comments
Acked-by: Kai Ji <kai.ji@intel.com<mailto:kai.ji@intel.com>>
Applied to dpdk-next-crypto
Thanks.
18/04/2023 16:56, Didier Pallard:
> This workaround was needed before version 1.0.1f. Do not build it for
> versions >= 1.1.
>
> Fixes: d61f70b4c918 ("crypto/libcrypto: add driver for OpenSSL library")
> Signed-off-by: Didier Pallard <didier.pallard@6wind.com>
> Cc: stable@dpdk.org
[...]
> +#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
> /* Workaround open ssl bug in version less then 1.0.1f */
> if (EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, empty, &unused, empty, 0) <= 0)
> goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err;
> +#endif
What happens if we build with OpenSSL 1.1 and run with OpenSSL 1.0?
Can we have a runtime check?
Or is it better doing the workaround always as before?
HI,
not sure to understand how it is possible.
If build OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L, linker should link binary
with libcrypto.so.1.0.0.
libcrypto.so.1.1 if build for 0x10100000L and libcrypto.so.3 for
0x30000000L
loader should not allow to link with a library different from the one used
at build time, no?
didier
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:22 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
> 18/04/2023 16:56, Didier Pallard:
> > This workaround was needed before version 1.0.1f. Do not build it for
> > versions >= 1.1.
> >
> > Fixes: d61f70b4c918 ("crypto/libcrypto: add driver for OpenSSL library")
> > Signed-off-by: Didier Pallard <didier.pallard@6wind.com>
> > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> [...]
> > +#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
> > /* Workaround open ssl bug in version less then 1.0.1f */
> > if (EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, empty, &unused, empty, 0) <= 0)
> > goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err;
> > +#endif
>
> What happens if we build with OpenSSL 1.1 and run with OpenSSL 1.0?
> Can we have a runtime check?
> Or is it better doing the workaround always as before?
>
>
>
26/06/2023 11:13, Didier Pallard:
> HI,
> not sure to understand how it is possible.
> If build OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L, linker should link binary
> with libcrypto.so.1.0.0.
> libcrypto.so.1.1 if build for 0x10100000L and libcrypto.so.3 for
> 0x30000000L
> loader should not allow to link with a library different from the one used
> at build time, no?
You are probably right.
libcrypto.so.1.1 and libcrypto.so.1.0 are incompatible versions?
If we are linking against libcrypto.so.1.1 and you did exactly
a check for lower than libcrypto.so.1.1, then it should be OK.
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:22 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net> wrote:
>
> > 18/04/2023 16:56, Didier Pallard:
> > > This workaround was needed before version 1.0.1f. Do not build it for
> > > versions >= 1.1.
> > >
> > > Fixes: d61f70b4c918 ("crypto/libcrypto: add driver for OpenSSL library")
> > > Signed-off-by: Didier Pallard <didier.pallard@6wind.com>
> > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > [...]
> > > +#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
> > > /* Workaround open ssl bug in version less then 1.0.1f */
> > > if (EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, empty, &unused, empty, 0) <= 0)
> > > goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > What happens if we build with OpenSSL 1.1 and run with OpenSSL 1.0?
> > Can we have a runtime check?
> > Or is it better doing the workaround always as before?
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:04 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
wrote:
> 26/06/2023 11:13, Didier Pallard:
> > HI,
> > not sure to understand how it is possible.
> > If build OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L, linker should link
> binary
> > with libcrypto.so.1.0.0.
> > libcrypto.so.1.1 if build for 0x10100000L and libcrypto.so.3 for
> > 0x30000000L
> > loader should not allow to link with a library different from the one
> used
> > at build time, no?
>
> You are probably right.
> libcrypto.so.1.1 and libcrypto.so.1.0 are incompatible versions?
>
I think so. Can someone else confirm?
> If we are linking against libcrypto.so.1.1 and you did exactly
> a check for lower than libcrypto.so.1.1, then it should be OK.
>
>
> > On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 9:22 PM Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > 18/04/2023 16:56, Didier Pallard:
> > > > This workaround was needed before version 1.0.1f. Do not build it for
> > > > versions >= 1.1.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: d61f70b4c918 ("crypto/libcrypto: add driver for OpenSSL
> library")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Didier Pallard <didier.pallard@6wind.com>
> > > > Cc: stable@dpdk.org
> > > [...]
> > > > +#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
> > > > /* Workaround open ssl bug in version less then 1.0.1f */
> > > > if (EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, empty, &unused, empty, 0) <= 0)
> > > > goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err;
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > What happens if we build with OpenSSL 1.1 and run with OpenSSL 1.0?
> > > Can we have a runtime check?
> > > Or is it better doing the workaround always as before?
>
>
>
>
@@ -1195,8 +1195,11 @@ process_openssl_auth_encryption_gcm(struct rte_mbuf *mbuf_src, int offset,
int srclen, uint8_t *aad, int aadlen, uint8_t *iv,
uint8_t *dst, uint8_t *tag, EVP_CIPHER_CTX *ctx)
{
- int len = 0, unused = 0;
+ int len = 0;
+#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
+ int unused = 0;
uint8_t empty[] = {};
+#endif
if (EVP_EncryptInit_ex(ctx, NULL, NULL, NULL, iv) <= 0)
goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err;
@@ -1210,9 +1213,11 @@ process_openssl_auth_encryption_gcm(struct rte_mbuf *mbuf_src, int offset,
srclen, ctx, 0))
goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err;
+#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
/* Workaround open ssl bug in version less then 1.0.1f */
if (EVP_EncryptUpdate(ctx, empty, &unused, empty, 0) <= 0)
goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err;
+#endif
if (EVP_EncryptFinal_ex(ctx, dst, &len) <= 0)
goto process_auth_encryption_gcm_err;
@@ -1274,8 +1279,11 @@ process_openssl_auth_decryption_gcm(struct rte_mbuf *mbuf_src, int offset,
int srclen, uint8_t *aad, int aadlen, uint8_t *iv,
uint8_t *dst, uint8_t *tag, EVP_CIPHER_CTX *ctx)
{
- int len = 0, unused = 0;
+ int len = 0;
+#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
+ int unused = 0;
uint8_t empty[] = {};
+#endif
if (EVP_CIPHER_CTX_ctrl(ctx, EVP_CTRL_GCM_SET_TAG, 16, tag) <= 0)
goto process_auth_decryption_gcm_err;
@@ -1292,9 +1300,11 @@ process_openssl_auth_decryption_gcm(struct rte_mbuf *mbuf_src, int offset,
srclen, ctx, 0))
goto process_auth_decryption_gcm_err;
+#if OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER < 0x10100000L
/* Workaround open ssl bug in version less then 1.0.1f */
if (EVP_DecryptUpdate(ctx, empty, &unused, empty, 0) <= 0)
goto process_auth_decryption_gcm_err;
+#endif
if (EVP_DecryptFinal_ex(ctx, dst, &len) <= 0)
return -EFAULT;