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

Re: svn commit: r1748461 - in /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x: ./ CHANGES support/ab.c

Sorry, I don't understand.

Gregg, can you shed some insight here? For both, applink.c is helpful if the OpenSSL .dll files are created with a different VC compiler than abs.exe was compiled with. And it is only effective if compiled into the .exe, it cannot be found from a .dll or Apache .so loadable.module. Otherwise, I understand this to be a noop.

OpenSSL project deprecated, that is, no longer ships applink.c in include/openssl/ install directory. LibreSSL and BoringSSL have no such resource.

Since you indicate that patching is trivial, and building with two different compilers isn't something an open source project should fret about, the Apache.exe and abs.exe should behave the same way. Pick one.

On Sat, Oct 13, 2018, 04:04 Steffen <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Do not understand your writing. 

abs.exe needs the applink shim, so leave it in. 

Op 12 okt. 2018 om 23:54 heeft William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> het volgende geschreven:

Great, I'll proceed with changing ab.c to remove the hack, since it is unneeded when ab.c is compiled by the same toolchain as libcrypto.dll, isn't available in non-openssl distributions, and was deprecated in 1.1.1 again.

Anyone interested can proceed to patch both and provision applink.c when working with OpenSSL 1.1.1, so I don't need to raise a ticket that project

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018, 16:37 Steffen <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Already for years we have in server/main.c :

#include "applink.c"

This solves errors like: no OPENSSL_Applink , see for example : 

No problem to patch. 

Op 12 okt. 2018 om 22:03 heeft William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> het volgende geschreven:

... and still hanging.

Rather than ApacheLounge and some others needing to patch each time, 
did we conclude that we should wire in the applink.c stub into Apache.exe
as shipped by httpd project?

(I've never mixed binaries of different MSVC environments, so myself,
I don't care, but it seems to raise issues for a subset of the community.)

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 7:05 PM William A Rowe Jr <wrowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So we kind of left this hanging...

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:35 PM Gregg Smith <gls@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/15/2016 9:20 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> In building httpd.exe, some users don't build and install openssl. It isn't
> going
> to be possible to simply #include<openssl/applink.c>  without some
> conditional
> test. OpenSSL itself is partly the culprit, for not having an
> style macro conditional. But we can work around this in the cmake tests.

This is why the patch creator put this inside a HAVE_OPENSSL block so
ab.exe did not get this added. abs (at least on the dsp et. al.) is not
built unless there is OpenSSL present.

> I'll look at making this a standard bit of the httpd 2.4 build. We can
> likely
> add a user-toggled flag to the os/win32/os.h?

Seems to me this is not needed .

So, is the win32 community in favor of using HAVE_OPENSSL to include applink.c in the scope of main.c (as revised in the current ab.c sources, to avoid this on libressl?)

There is a presumption that the crt used by libhttpd the same as libapr, but I think this is a reasonable connection.

The entire logic to main.c should be as simple as...

#if defined(HAVE_OPENSSL) && defined(_MSC_VER) && !defined(LIBRESSL_VERSION_NUMBER)
/* The following logic ensures we correctly glue FILE* within one CRT used
 * by the OpenSSL library build to another CRT used by the ab.exe build.
 * This became especially problematic with Visual Studio 2015.
#include <openssl/applink.c>

By inserting the structure in httpd.exe, that structure can be found by the openssl library, which is not true of including this in a loadable library such as libhttpd.dll or libaprutil-1.dll.