Fwd: PostgreSQL: WolfSSL support
Hi,
Is anyone here interested in helping to evaluate an experimental patch
for wolfSSL support?
Attached please find a WIP patch for wolfSSL support in postgresql-12.
As a shortcut, you may find this merge request helpful:
https://salsa.debian.org/postgresql/postgresql/-/merge_requests/4
I used Debian stable (buster) with backports enabled and preferred.
The wolfssl.patch in d/patches builds and completes all tests, as long
as libwolfssl-dev version 4.4.0+dfsg-2~bpo10+1 is installed and
patched with the included libwolfssl-dev-rename-types.patch.
You can do so as root with:
cd /usr/include/wolfssl
patch -p1 < libwolfssl-dev-rename-types.patch
Patching the library was easier than resolving type conflicts for
twenty-five files. An attempt was made but resulted in failing tests.
The offending types are called 'ValidateDate' and 'Hash'. They do not
seem to be part of the wolfSSL ABI.
The patch operates with the following caveats:
1. DH parameters are not currently loaded from a database-internal PEM
certificate. The function OBJ_find_sigid_algs is not available. The
security implications should be discussed with a cryptographer.
2. The contrib module pgcrypto was not compiled with OpenSSL support
and currently offers only native algorithms. wolfSSL's compatibility
support for OpenSSL's EVP interface is incomplete and offers only a
few algorithms. The module should work directly with wolfCrypt.
3. The error reporting in wolfSSL_set_fd seems to be different from
OpenSSL. I could not locate SSLerr and decided to return BAD_FUNC_ARG.
That is what the routine being mimicked does in wolfSSL. If you see an
SSL connection error, it may be wise to simply remove these two
statements in src/interfaces/libpq/fe-secure-openssl.c:
ret = BAD_FUNC_ARG;
Unsupported functions or features can probably be replaced with
wolfSSL's or wolfCrypt's native interfaces. The company may be happy
to assist.
The patch includes modifications toward missing goals. Some parts
modify code, for example in util/pgpcrypto, that is not actually called.
Please note that the wolfSSL team prefers the styling of their brand
to be capitalized as recorded in this sentence. Thank you!
Kind regards
Felix Lechner
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: CAFHYt55jRe_LDNvOL3ap1n2ZmVOYR8pxwJOh5ij9fnP4cxKrg@mail.gmail.comReference msg id not found: CAFHYt55jRe_LDNvOL3ap1n2ZmVOYR8pxwJOh5ij9fnP4cxKrg@mail.gmail.com
On 2020-06-27 00:33, Felix Lechner wrote:
Is anyone here interested in helping to evaluate an experimental patch
for wolfSSL support?
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
Christoph
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 02:50:27PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
Uh, wolfSSL is GPL2:
https://www.wolfssl.com/license/
Not sure why we would want to lock Postgres into a GPL-style
requirement. As I understand it, we don't normally ship readline or
openssl.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 02:50:27PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
Uh, wolfSSL is GPL2:
https://www.wolfssl.com/license/
Readline is GPLv3+ (according to Red Hat's labeling of that package
anyway, didn't check the source). So they'd be compatible, while
openssl's license is nominally incompatible with GPL. As I recall,
Debian jumps through some silly hoops to pretend that they're not
using openssl and readline at the same time with Postgres, so I
can definitely understand Christoph's interest in an alternative.
However, judging from the caveats mentioned in the initial message,
my inclination would be to wait awhile for wolfSSL to mature.
In any case, the patch as written seems to *remove* the option
to compile PG with OpenSSL. The chance of it being accepted that
way is indistinguishable from zero. We've made some efforts towards
separating out the openssl-specific bits, so the shape I'd expect
from a patch like this is to add some parallel wolfssl-specific bits.
There probably are more such bits to separate, but this isn't the
way to proceed.
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:56:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 02:50:27PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
Uh, wolfSSL is GPL2:
https://www.wolfssl.com/license/Readline is GPLv3+ (according to Red Hat's labeling of that package
anyway, didn't check the source). So they'd be compatible, while
openssl's license is nominally incompatible with GPL. As I recall,
Debian jumps through some silly hoops to pretend that they're not
using openssl and readline at the same time with Postgres, so I
can definitely understand Christoph's interest in an alternative.However, judging from the caveats mentioned in the initial message,
my inclination would be to wait awhile for wolfSSL to mature.
Also, wolfSSL is developed by a company and dual GPL/commerical
licenses, so it seems like a mismatch to me.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
Also, wolfSSL is developed by a company and dual GPL/commerical
licenses, so it seems like a mismatch to me.
Yeah, that's definitely a factor behind my disinterest in
making wolfSSL be the only alternative. However, as long as
it's available on GPL terms, I don't see a problem with it
being one alternative.
regards, tom lane
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 11:16:26AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
Also, wolfSSL is developed by a company and dual GPL/commerical
licenses, so it seems like a mismatch to me.Yeah, that's definitely a factor behind my disinterest in
making wolfSSL be the only alternative. However, as long as
it's available on GPL terms, I don't see a problem with it
being one alternative.
Yeah, I guess it depends on how much Postgres code it takes to support
it. Company-developed open source stuff usually goes into pay mode once
it gets popular, so I am not super-excited to be going in this
direction.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
Re: Tom Lane
In any case, the patch as written seems to *remove* the option
to compile PG with OpenSSL.
It's a WIP patch, meant to see if it works at all. Of course OpenSSL
would stay as the default option.
Christoph
Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> writes:
It's a WIP patch, meant to see if it works at all. Of course OpenSSL
would stay as the default option.
Fair enough. One thing that struck me as I looked at it was that
most of the #include hackery seemed unnecessary. The configure
script could add -I/usr/include/wolfssl (or wherever those files
are) to CPPFLAGS instead of touching all those #includes.
regards, tom lane
Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 09:50, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
escreveu:
Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
I'm curious, how do you intend to solve a linking problem with
OpenSSL-vs-GPL-readline, with another GPL product?
WolfSSL, will provide a commercial license for PostgreSQL?
Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative?
regards,
Ranier Vilela
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:25 PM Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> wrote:
Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 09:50, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
escreveu:Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
I'm curious, how do you intend to solve a linking problem with
OpenSSL-vs-GPL-readline, with another GPL product?
WolfSSL, will provide a commercial license for PostgreSQL?
Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative?
Somewhere, I recall seeing an open-source OpenSSL compatibility wrapper for
WolfSSL. Assuming that still exists, this patch seems entirely unnecessary.
--
Jonah H. Harris
Re: Jonah H. Harris
Somewhere, I recall seeing an open-source OpenSSL compatibility wrapper for
WolfSSL. Assuming that still exists, this patch seems entirely unnecessary.
Unless you actually tried.
Christoph
Re: Ranier Vilela
I'm curious, how do you intend to solve a linking problem with
OpenSSL-vs-GPL-readline, with another GPL product?
WolfSSL, will provide a commercial license for PostgreSQL?
It's replacing OpenSSL+GPL with GPL+GPL.
Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative?
I don't know.
Christoph
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:22:51PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em s�b., 27 de jun. de 2020 �s 09:50, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
escreveu:Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
I'm curious, how do you intend to solve a linking problem with
OpenSSL-vs-GPL-readline, with another GPL product?
I assume you can use wolfSSL as long as the result is GPL, which is the
same requirement libreadline causes for Postgres, particularly if
Postgres is statically linked to libreadline.
WolfSSL, will provide a commercial license for PostgreSQL?
Isn't LIbreSSL a better alternative?
Seems it might be.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 16:40, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
escreveu:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:22:51PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 09:50, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
escreveu:Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
I'm curious, how do you intend to solve a linking problem with
OpenSSL-vs-GPL-readline, with another GPL product?I assume you can use wolfSSL as long as the result is GPL, which is the
same requirement libreadline causes for Postgres, particularly if
Postgres is statically linked to libreadline.
I don't want to divert the focus from the theread, but this subject has a
controversial potential, in my opinion.
I participated in a speech on another list, where I make contributions (IUP
library: https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/).
Where a user, upon discovering that two sub-libraries, were GPL licenses,
caused an uproar, bringing the speech to Mr.Stallman himself.
In short, the best thing for the project will be to remove the two GPL
sub-libraries.
regards,
Ranier Vilela
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 06:14:21PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em s�b., 27 de jun. de 2020 �s 16:40, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
escreveu:On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:22:51PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em s�b., 27 de jun. de 2020 �s 09:50, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
escreveu:� � �Re: Peter Eisentraut
� � �> What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?� � �Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
I'm curious, how do you intend to solve a linking problem with
OpenSSL-vs-GPL-readline, with another GPL product?I assume you can use wolfSSL as long as the result is GPL, which is the
same requirement libreadline causes for Postgres, particularly if
Postgres is statically linked to libreadline.I don't want to divert the focus from the theread, but this subject has a
controversial potential, in my opinion.
I participated in a speech on another list, where I make contributions (IUP
library: https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/).
Where a user, upon discovering that two sub-libraries, were GPL licenses,
caused an uproar, bringing the speech to Mr.Stallman himself.
In short, the best thing for the project will be to remove the two GPL
sub-libraries.
We aleady try to do that by trying to use BSD-licensed libedit if
installed:
https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/tree/master/lib/libedit
https://certif.com/spec_print/readline.html
I would love to see libedit fully functional so we don't need to rely on
libreadline anymore, but I seem to remember there are a few libreadline
features that libedit doesn't implement, so we use libreadline if it is
already installed. (I am still not clear if dynamic linking is a GPL
violation.)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:37 PM Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
Re: Jonah H. Harris
Somewhere, I recall seeing an open-source OpenSSL compatibility wrapper
for
WolfSSL. Assuming that still exists, this patch seems entirely
unnecessary.
Unless you actually tried.
Did you? It worked for me in the past on a similarly large system...
--
Jonah H. Harris
Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 18:23, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
escreveu:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 06:14:21PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 16:40, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
escreveu:On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 04:22:51PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Em sáb., 27 de jun. de 2020 às 09:50, Christoph Berg <
myon@debian.org>
escreveu:
Re: Peter Eisentraut
What would be the advantage of using wolfSSL over OpenSSL?
Avoiding the OpenSSL-vs-GPL linkage problem with readline.
I'm curious, how do you intend to solve a linking problem with
OpenSSL-vs-GPL-readline, with another GPL product?I assume you can use wolfSSL as long as the result is GPL, which is
the
same requirement libreadline causes for Postgres, particularly if
Postgres is statically linked to libreadline.I don't want to divert the focus from the theread, but this subject has a
controversial potential, in my opinion.
I participated in a speech on another list, where I make contributions(IUP
library: https://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/iup/).
Where a user, upon discovering that two sub-libraries, were GPL licenses,
caused an uproar, bringing the speech to Mr.Stallman himself.
In short, the best thing for the project will be to remove the two GPL
sub-libraries.We aleady try to do that by trying to use BSD-licensed libedit if
installed:https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/tree/master/lib/libedit
https://certif.com/spec_print/readline.htmlI would love to see libedit fully functional so we don't need to rely on
libreadline anymore, but I seem to remember there are a few libreadline
features that libedit doesn't implement, so we use libreadline if it is
already installed. (I am still not clear if dynamic linking is a GPL
violation.)
Personally, the dynamic link does not hurt the GPL.
But some people, do not think so, it was also unclear what Mr Stallman
thinks of the subject (dynamic link).
regards,
Ranier Vilela
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 06:25:21PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
Personally, the dynamic link does not hurt the GPL.
But some people, do not think so, it was also unclear what Mr Stallman thinks
of the subject (dynamic link).
I think Stallman says the courts have to decide, which kind of makes
sense.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
