Re: Fwd: sign-file.c:149:17: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘ENGINE_load_builtin_engines’

[Dennis Clarke]

On 11/23/23 20:05, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-11-23 at 18:42 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > On 11/23/23 09:53, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2023-11-17 at 00:34 -0500, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > > > On 11/16/23 18:41, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I notice a bug report on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Not related to
> > > > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215750 but I
.
.  <snip>
.
> > I am looking into this. The code will likely age into some deprecated
> > calls and I think that I may be way out on the edge here.
>
> So you did build without engine support ...

Yep.

    --prefix=/usr/local no-asm shared no-engine no-hw threads zlib
         sctp enable-weak-ssl-ciphers -DPEDANTIC -D_REENTRANT

So there we see the "no-engine" option.  That pretty much kicks the
sign-file.c code to the curb.


> >   However the code will need a pile of ifndef stuff and then call the
> > correct future looking calls for OpenSSL 3.x etc etc etc ... the
> > usual stuff
>
> Well, not really: openssl is highly configurable and if it gets
> configured wrongly, stuff like this happens. 

Well, not "wrongly". More like "not the usual off the shelf stuff".

> That's why distros have a
> fairly inclusive configuration and they stick to it.  No-one can cope
> with the combinatoric explosion of openssl configuration possibilities
> (even though they have ifdefs for most of them) so the only way is
> really to fix a standard configuration and assume you're building for
> it.

Seems clear to me.

> Openssl has been talking for ages about removing engine support, but
> they've been unable to do so due to the rather slow pace of conversion
> of their own engines.  I anticipate this code can be removed in favour
> of the pkcs11 provider long before openssl actually manages to remove
> engines.
>
> James


Well I thank you for the clarity here. I still feel that sign-file.c 
needs a bit of a rewrite and I guess the old expression "patches are
welcome" works here.


Dennis Clarke
RISC-V/SPARC/PPC/ARM/CISC
UNIX and Linux spoken