Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tk73c-0009PS-TA for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:45:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tk73b-002Db6-9O for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:45:31 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1tk73a-002DaX-W1 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:45:31 +0000 Received: from smtp.outgoing.loopia.se ([93.188.3.37]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1tk73X-001NSW-2x for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:45:29 +0000 Received: from s807.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFB429A295 for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:45:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from s934.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.5]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFDB929A1BA; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:45:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from s473.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.5]) by s934.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9E757CEA35; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:45:23 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amavis.loopia.se X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: s473.loopia.se (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yesql.se Received: from s979.loopia.se ([172.22.191.6]) by s473.loopia.se (s473.loopia.se [172.22.190.13]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with UTF8LMTP id FtX6JgO4o-HB; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:45:23 +0100 (CET) X-Loopia-Auth: user X-Loopia-User: daniel@yesql.se X-Loopia-Originating-IP: 89.255.232.193 Received: from smtpclient.apple (customer-89-255-232-193.stosn.net [89.255.232.193]) (Authenticated sender: daniel@yesql.se) by s979.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27BB810BC48E; Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:45:23 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yesql.se; s=loopiadkim1707475645; t=1739821523; bh=k9lBRk5YoLzLu+NSJnlYIMlvJ67HyZmY1MFw1JPC1Qg=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=p2bFwVIO7WHQT9BwPnHUZdVtYFwaFBNvXdzh9rlxwrzZevMWgJbE6UMT1CR2Gul2l sV7hLrWgdu+8SR6EgX9u3jbttBv2epQcLwzWR3rwrn7dZmjnhdsJ0sQg7eI3r+Sle8 wjS+D6x++062vmifXEyc4sFDFy6KQvPUufSM9813k06hmMB9bbG1ApUgdVQVZDv/fp EHPSpGCwR5/sYHDJdZKZzT2XOs8dSc9v9Sc3XzLaItxfm5A8PtYFfiH/GNEZJCI3ke iJQlzVPk3uOrpay487xqxVGoyVqJkEYQG5lsBdof5QCCV/DHjFwbhqu+ZlZoNUlj4L KXbMob/Mqi3Nw== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51.11.1\)) Subject: Re: New buildfarm animals with FIPS mode enabled From: Daniel Gustafsson In-Reply-To: <862710.1739820235@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:45:12 +0100 Cc: Mark Wong , =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro_Herrera?= , pgsql-hackers , buildfarm@enterprisedb.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <202502171036.e333mhga2262@alvherre.pgsql> <8DBA7EE1-1B9A-4F22-A53F-1C6FB99C2F8D@gmail.com> <830661.1739809613@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1CB7E685-9D71-4690-860F-5533119C0997@yesql.se> <862710.1739820235@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51.11.1) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk > On 17 Feb 2025, at 20:23, Tom Lane wrote: > Daniel Gustafsson writes: >=20 >> Isn't it postgres version mostly? We fixed so the testsuite passed = on FIPS >> enabled machines by just not using anything that violates FIPS but I = don't >> remember anything OpenSSL version specific. >=20 > No, there are two distinct problems: Ah, right, thanks. > Obviously, we could talk about extending the regression tests' > support for these cases, but I'm really dubious that it's worth > the work. Agreed. -- Daniel Gustafsson