[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: mod_ssl and openssl 1.0.2 initialization

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:05 PM, Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
<ruediger.pluem@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Von: Yann Ylavic <ylavic.dev@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Yes, I agree that we have an issue with openssl (< 1.1)
>> loading/unloading/initialization for different modules: core, mod_ssl,
>> mod_md, mod_crypto (via APR), mod_authn_dbd (I wasn't aware of this
>> one using openssl), ... (others?) may all use openssl and in arbitrary
>> order depending on the configuration.
> You forgot mod_ldap depending on the LDAP library being used and how this
> Library was compiled to support SSL.

OK, if this can be determined at compile time we can always hook
something (optional_fn_retrieve looks like a good candidate already).

>> I wonder which module would provide them though, mod_ssl looks quite
>> straightforward but then it would be a requirement for, e.g.
>> mod_authn_dbd? This does not look right either...
>> Or maybe there could be a way to autoload a mod_openssl (functional
>> only) module?
> This looks like the most sane way. It could become very thin once something
> in APR is available. Do we need to do the same for other crypto libraries, but
> openssl or do they have a better design with this respect? If it is needed for them
> as well, we should have one module that covers them all, not just openssl.

apr_crypto_lib_init/term() exist for "nss" and "commoncrypto" already
(plus two ENOTIMPLs for some MS implementations/stubs in APR crypto).
We could steal code from there if needed.