> On 7 May 2025, at 18:04, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> writes: >>> On 7 May 2025, at 06:34, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I couldn't help noticing that the backtraces went through >>> lib/libssl/tls13_legacy.c, which doesn't give a warm feeling >>> about how supported they think our usage is (and perhaps also >>> explains why they didn't detect this bug themselves). > >> Since we no longer support 1.0.2 we can apply something like the (lightly >> tested) attached which should be a no-op as we already use TLS_method() but >> via >> an alias. > > Yeah, I saw that SSLv23_method() was merely an alias for TLS_method() > in LibreSSL as well. That means unfortunately that your proposal is > just cosmetic and doesn't get us out of using code that they're > calling "legacy". I wonder what it would take to get to the "modern" > code paths.
AFAICT (it's not documented what I can see) the Libressl folks consider code inherited from OpenSSL legacy. Using current OpenSSL API's and moving away from deprecated API's is probably our best bet. On that note, TLS_method is the current API to use in both OpenSSL and Libressl according to their respective documentations. A separate be-secure-libressl.c could move to use their libtls instead of the libssl OpenSSL compatibility library, which may be an interesting excercise but a very different project from what is discussed here. -- Daniel Gustafsson
