[Python-Dev] LibreSSL support
On 2018-01-19 15:42, Christian Heimes wrote:
> On 2018-01-19 10:43, Steve Holden wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com
>> <mailto:njs at pobox.com>> wrote:
>> On Jan 18, 2018 07:34, "Christian Heimes" <christian at python.org
>> <mailto:christian at python.org>> wrote:
>> On 2018-01-16 21:17, Christian Heimes wrote:
>> > FYI, master on Travis CI now builds and uses OpenSSL 1.1.0g . I have
>> > created a daily cronjob to populate Travis' cache with OpenSSL builds.
>> > Until the cache is filled, Linux CI will take an extra 5 minute.
>> I have messed up my initial research. :( When I was checking
>> and OpenSSL for features, I draw a wrong conclusion. LibreSSL is
>> OpenSSL 1.0.2 compatible. It only implements some of the required
>> features from 1.0.2 (e.g. X509_check_hostname) but not
>> X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_host() is required to perform hostname
>> verification during the TLS handshake. Without the function, I'm
>> to fix Python's hostname matching code . LibreSSL upstream knows
>> about the issue since 2016 . I have opened another bug report
>> We have two options until LibreSSL has addressed the issue:
>> 1) Make the SSL module more secure, simpler and standard conform
>> 2) Support LibreSSL
>> We have *very* few people qualified to maintain the ssl module, so
>> given the new landscape I think we should focus on keeping our core
>> OpenSSL support solid and not worry about LibreSSL. If LibreSSL
>> wants to be supported as well then ? like any other 2nd tier
>> platform ? they need to find someone to do the work. And if people
>> are worried about supporting more diversity in SSL implementations,
>> then PEP 543 is probably the thing to focus on.
>> ?Given the hard limit on resources it seems only sensible to focus on
>> the "industry standard" library?. I'm rather disappointed that LibreSSL
>> isn't a choice, but given the lack of compatibility that's hardly
>> Python's problem.
> I'd prefer to support LibreSSL, too. Paul Kehrer from PyCA summed up the
> issue with LibreSSL nicely:
>> It was marketed as an API compatible drop-in replacement and it is
> failing in that capacity. Additionally, it is missing features needed to
> improve the security and ease the maintenance burden of CPython?s dev team.
> Since I haven given up on LibreSSL, I spent some time and implemented
> some autoconf magic in https://github.com/python/cpython/pull/5242. It
> checks for the presence of libssl and X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_host()
> function family:
> checking whether compiling and linking against OpenSSL works... yes
> checking for X509_VERIFY_PARAM_set1_host in libssl... yes
> The ssl module will regain compatibility with LibreSSL as soon as a new
> release provides the necessary functions.
No core developer has vetoed against my proposal. I also spoke to
several members of Python Cryptographic Authority and Python Packaging
Authority. They are all in favor of my proposal, too.
There I have decided to move forward and require OpenSSL 1.0.2 API. This
means Python 3.7 temporarily suspends support for LibreSSL until
https://github.com/libressl-portable/portable/issues/381 is resolved. I
have appended a lengthy explanation to my LibreSSL ticket, too.
I also informed LibreSSL developers that Python 3.8 will most likely
require an OpenSSL 1.1 compatible API. With OpenSSL 1.0.2 support, I can
drop a considerable amount of legacy code, e.g. custom thread locking,
initialization and a bunch of shim functions.