(Top posting because some other posters did so).
Please note the following problems with the so naming
defaults in version 1.0.2a:
1. On Android, developers are (or were until recently)
officially told *not* to rely on the system copy of OpenSSL,
since it is not part of the official API. Thus packaging
your own copy or relying on the botched version of Java
JCE implemented on top of the system OpenSSL are the only
officially supported options.
2. On many systems that install OpenSSL 1.0.1 (any patch
level) as libcrypto.so.1.0.0, installing OpenSSL 1.0.2a
as libcrypto.so.1.0.0 will instantly break system software
linked against the 1.0.1 under the same ABI name. So much
for binary compatibility.
Thus for Android, you would want to link it as
libcom_yourdomain_yourapp_crypto.so (file name must match
lib*.so for theapk to unpack correctly), or as a static
PIC library, making the system think it has nothing to do
with any well-known or other app's copy of OpenSSL. Be
sure to release new versions of your app whenever an
OpenSSL security update affects something you actually use
from the library.
For parallel installation of OpenSSL 1.0.2a and the OS
supplied OpenSSL 1.0.1 (with patches equivalent to the
latest release), modify SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER from 1.0.0
to 1.0.2 in the folliwing files from the tarball:
crypto/opensslv.h
Makefile
Makefile.bak
I have pasted the patch I use at the end of this mail
(nothing cryptographic, soI think I can post that without
extra red tape).
On 22/04/2015 16:26, John Foley wrote:
Are you packaging libcrypto.so into the APK yourself? The Android OS
comes with it's own resident copy of libcrypto. You can leverage this
from your app without having to package libcrypto into your
application. This assumes the version of libcrypto that comes with
Android meets your needs. Given the various flavors of Android out in
the wild, this may limit what your application can do with libcrypto.
If you're packaging libcrypto into your APK, one problem I've seen in
Android is the System.LoadLibrary() call will use the host resident copy
of libcrypto instead of the one packaged in the APK. One way to get
around this is to hack the linker step in the OpenSSL makefile to rename
libcrypto to something different. You'll need to make sure the -soname
option on the linker step is consistent with whatever you name the
library. For instance, you can name it libcryptoX.so, and pass in this
same name to the -soname option. Confirm that it works using objdump to
view the ELF header. The soname will be in the ELF header. Then
package libcryptoX.so into your APK and use this name with the
System.LoadLibrary() call.
On 04/22/2015 09:41 AM, Shanku Roy wrote:
Am cross compiling the FIPS enabled version for Android; In Android, some apps
are having trouble loading their bundled libcrypto library when the binary is
named as *.so.1.0.0 instead of libcrypto.so as platform library.
----- Original Message -----
From: Viktor Dukhovni <openssl-us...@dukhovni.org>
To: openssl-users@openssl.org
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2015 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: [openssl-users] Building libcrypto/libssl without symbolic link
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:12:45AM +0000, Shanku Roy wrote:
lrw-r--r-- root root 2015-04-10 02:33 libcrypto.so ->
libcrypto.so.1.0.0
-rw-r--r-- root root 1988088 2015-04-10 02:27 libcrypto.so.1.0.0
Is there any configure option in OpenSSL build scripts to not generate
the symbolic links and rather generate actual binary as
libcrypto.so/libssl.so from the build process like following:
The library "soname" is part of the ABI. What platform are you
building for where it would not be appropriate to encode the ABI
compatibility name into the library name?
(Beware of long lines in this patch)
=================== Cut here ===================
diff -Naur openssl-1.0.2a.orig/crypto/opensslv.h
openssl-1.0.2a/crypto/opensslv.h
--- openssl-1.0.2a.orig/crypto/opensslv.h 2015-03-19
14:31:16.000000000 +0100
+++ openssl-1.0.2a/crypto/opensslv.h 2015-03-22 23:10:15.000000000 +0100
@@ -88,7 +88,7 @@
* should only keep the versions that are binary compatible with the
current.
*/
# define SHLIB_VERSION_HISTORY ""
-# define SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER "1.0.0"
+# define SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER "1.0.2"
#ifdef __cplusplus
diff -Naur openssl-1.0.2a.orig/Makefile openssl-1.0.2a/Makefile
--- openssl-1.0.2a.orig/Makefile 2015-03-19 14:31:16.000000000 +0100
+++ openssl-1.0.2a/Makefile 2015-03-22 23:06:50.000000000 +0100
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
VERSION=1.0.2a
MAJOR=1
MINOR=0.2
-SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER=1.0.0
+SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER=1.0.2
SHLIB_VERSION_HISTORY=
SHLIB_MAJOR=1
-SHLIB_MINOR=0.0
+SHLIB_MINOR=0.2
SHLIB_EXT=
PLATFORM=dist
OPTIONS= no-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128 no-gmp no-jpake no-krb5 no-libunbound
no-md2 no-rc5 no-rfc3779 no-sctp no-shared no-ssl-trace no-store
no-unit-test no-zlib no-zlib-dynamic static-engine
diff -Naur openssl-1.0.2a.orig/Makefile.bak openssl-1.0.2a/Makefile.bak
--- openssl-1.0.2a.orig/Makefile.bak 2015-03-19 14:30:59.000000000 +0100
+++ openssl-1.0.2a/Makefile.bak 2015-03-22 23:07:01.000000000 +0100
@@ -7,10 +7,10 @@
VERSION=1.0.2a-dev
MAJOR=1
MINOR=0.2
-SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER=1.0.0
+SHLIB_VERSION_NUMBER=1.0.2
SHLIB_VERSION_HISTORY=
SHLIB_MAJOR=1
-SHLIB_MINOR=0.0
+SHLIB_MINOR=0.2
SHLIB_EXT=
PLATFORM=gcc
OPTIONS= no-ec_nistp_64_gcc_128 no-gmp no-jpake no-krb5 no-libunbound
no-md2 no-rc5 no-rfc3779 no-sctp no-shared no-ssl-trace no-store
no-unit-test no-zlib no-zlib-dynamic static-engine
=================== Cut here ===================
Enjoy
Jakob
--
Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. http://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded
_______________________________________________
openssl-users mailing list
To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-users
