From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
        Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: disabled SSL log_like tests
In-reply-to: <3004EFB2-8FFA-429A-AC5E-E3F40E002A94@yesql.se>
References: <984fca80-85a8-4c6f-a5cc-bb860950b435@dunslane.net>
 <2199758.1744901785@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1ce11d3f-624c-4003-a032-1b10cc138305@dunslane.net>
 <2814408.1745005558@sss.pgh.pa.us> <2859105.1745015195@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1120735.1745350422@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+fLqyweHqFSBcErueUVT0vDuSNWui-ySz3+d_APmq7dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3058990.1746485124@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3227092.1746580691@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGJkUJAwckjBr-=B9oUdDgjSEH+3njd__OnPoPuAtze3Qg@mail.gmail.com>
 <3248136.1746592452@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3004EFB2-8FFA-429A-AC5E-E3F40E002A94@yesql.se>
Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
	message dated "Wed, 07 May 2025 08:54:48 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3320403.1746633879.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 12:04:39 -0400
Message-ID: <3320404.1746633879@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3320404.1746633879%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
>> On 7 May 2025, at 06:34, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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).

> Since we no longer support 1.0.2 we can apply something like the (lightl=
y
> tested) attached which should be a no-op as we already use TLS_method() =
but via
> an alias.

Yeah, I saw that SSLv23_method() was merely an alias for TLS_method()
in LibreSSL as well.  That means unfortunately that your proposal is
just cosmetic and doesn't get us out of using code that they're
calling "legacy".  I wonder what it would take to get to the "modern"
code paths.

			regards, tom lane