Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?

From: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cutting support for OpenSSL 1.0.1 and 1.0.2 in 17~?
Date: 2024-03-30 21:27:44
Message-ID: CA+hUKGJrfU7dhxwJEG2wPDx0LFS2svB0DWmDCKzYuX2XS5f1hw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Mar 31, 2024 at 9:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I was reminded of this thread by ambient security paranoia. As it
> > stands, we require 1.0.2 (but we very much hope that package
> > maintainers and others in control of builds don't decide to use it).
> > Should we skip 1.1.1 and move to requiring 3 for v17?
>
> I'd be kind of sad if I couldn't test SSL stuff anymore on my
> primary workstation, which has
>
> $ rpm -q openssl
> openssl-1.1.1k-12.el8_9.x86_64
>
> I think it's probably true that <=1.0.2 is not in any distro that
> we still need to pay attention to, but I reject the contention
> that RHEL8 is not in that set.

Hmm, OK so it doesn't have 3 available in parallel from base repos.
But it's also about to reach end of "full support" in 2 months[1], so
if we applied the policies we discussed in the LLVM-vacuuming thread
(to wit: build farm - EOL'd OSes), then... One question I'm unclear
on is whether v17 will be packaged for RHEL8.

[1] https://access.redhat.com/product-life-cycles?product=Red%20Hat%20Enterprise%20Linux

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2024-03-30 21:33:04 Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements
Previous Message Andres Freund 2024-03-30 21:12:44 Re: Security lessons from liblzma