Horton
Menu

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

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>

View thread
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, mikael.kjellstrom@gmail.com
Date: 2024-04-05T17:03:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> On 5 Apr 2024, at 18:41, Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 6:37 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:

>> I would be OK to draw a line to what we test in the buildfarm if it
>> comes to that, down to OpenBSD 6.9.
> 
> That would correspond to LibreSSL 3.3 if I'm not mistaken. Any
> particular reason for 6.9 as the dividing line, and not something
> later? And by "test in the buildfarm", do you mean across all
> versions, or just what we support for PG17? (For the record, I don't
> think there's any reason to drop older LibreSSL testing for earlier
> branches.)

We should draw the line on something we can reliably test, so 6.9 seems fine to
me (unless there is evidence of older versions being common in the wild).
OpenBSD themselves support 2 backbranches so 6.9 is still far beyond the EOL
mark upstream.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Remove obsolete unconstify()

  2. Only perform pg_strong_random init when required

  3. Remove support for OpenSSL older than 1.1.0

  4. Support SSL_R_VERSION_TOO_LOW when using LibreSSL

  5. Support disallowing SSL renegotiation when using LibreSSL

  6. Doc: Use past tense for things which happened in the past

  7. Remove support for OpenSSL 1.0.1

  8. Remove support for OpenSSL 0.9.8 and 1.0.0