From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com (mail-ot1-f67.google.com [209.85.210.67]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C102E7C4E9 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:01:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id r19so14909826otn.1 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:01:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ossystems-com-br.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xKNPneWX9DmZtvzb53m3cSerUL+eXqxAYrj9GcT/8TM=; b=PISmCfQHcDgPphpGl8nIojQa44YeObkAqyaJ6xx/RuogHPMeU246VlSPayOkSvwei1 g8TBkX3VbkynbBpYhIvpblZ6NzXEui1qZQi3sqTbTU0AZbF8eT5QqGXgZP9vEaR/Et4E 6x89N6ndRx2+SnIXocc1BXIsvsIGbmJTUlzwlqE85/CEeuKhSnBWKLfS4PBnC7ptxCkO utcaOcDIIkO62KuKt6UU2spfcCFGQDULo9UYwczuV8w9qQBbU65r+WmaeZ+imavTH4bo 98yq9C2NSx8Ec4OM96xDoVWZT6PDCSQBSACDBp0v3TZGwZ13lsgsjaI4FwKSRQYVB35R /4XA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xKNPneWX9DmZtvzb53m3cSerUL+eXqxAYrj9GcT/8TM=; b=eShUp00v6GnamhAL3jCOJYPgEdXi6DUfguPA8Q2qlTT3jV5hLi0hfp8ZY2nc2vBLgD lvMYUyEqVAUIvYc+fUapHnrzIHespVTTNqo2N+uvv794FS856dXk2pikoXcKiokL+ht8 pYGlcS+46cAPzc1E7OQbVo3m7nqhWM0w31xpV5PlEAerFZsUCn1BBxbt7NRhIX+udt66 HW9oIGfNRtPXKBrbmQ36C8OAUSqI006uDLNQhGzdyoi/RbVHJXdw82ZOWgig83+9FWFp 1mdw7J8sZNrCK2X/+a3pMolgLSRhD9KhlvXT2wUb5i99HItxm16QYw9453WKJMbNNLhS XYjw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX/wvdvLE2N7cryKudXLVFwQpKKHjJMPVZLv38aiPzxltSXHi4d UlmIqw83/Z+5GlyR4I51a2WKiRCK10ZHRw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyA2+ZSR0sLT07g7QYkFBbkSIlIqnLid26PAuQ5ptsry7Z/O1xCMHmUcQ1X7sn+IIv/Rc7zMg== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7b4d:: with SMTP id f13mr10343692oto.256.1552924872067; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oi1-f178.google.com (mail-oi1-f178.google.com. [209.85.167.178]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m125sm4380341oib.49.2019.03.18.09.01.11 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:01:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Otavio Salvador X-Google-Original-From: Otavio Salvador Received: by mail-oi1-f178.google.com with SMTP id x188so1249279oia.13 for ; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:01:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:aca:ac45:: with SMTP id v66mr9642626oie.134.1552924870652; Mon, 18 Mar 2019 09:01:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190318133618.4022-1-otavio@ossystems.com.br> <166926B2-31F9-4290-A4B8-1EC6486C7357@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <166926B2-31F9-4290-A4B8-1EC6486C7357@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 13:00:58 -0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: To: Alexander Kanavin , Khem Raj , "Purdie, Richard" , "Burton, Ross" Cc: Otavio Salvador , OpenEmbedded Core Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] openssl: Use the c_rehash shell re-implementation for target X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 16:01:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hello Alexander, On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:53 AM Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > Apologies, but I still have to veto this. The concerns I expressed previously still stand. > > The best course of action would be to work with the OpenSSL upstream to replace the utility with either C or shell version. I understand your concerns about this however, those also stands for the native recipe. So we have two possible routes which seem to align with those concerns: 1) assume the c_rehash in shell script is good enough and adopt it 2) drop c_rehash from openssl recipe either work. The use of a different version for target and native does not seem consistent either correct. As mentioned, this has been in use in multiple devices for years without concerns and this has been changed under the hood when moving to OpenSSL 1.1. Also, the ca-certificate is broken for installation on target now (as it uses c_rehash) and this is still unnoticed. So I know your view on this. I'd like to know the view of other team members as well... -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750