Re: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
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: Move OpenSSL random under USE_OPENSSL_RANDOM
Date: 2020-11-15 17:16:56
Message-ID: 632623.1605460616@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> I think the defensive-in-code instead of defensive-in-docs is a really
> strong argument, so I have pushed it as such.

I notice warnings that I think are caused by this patch on some buildfarm
members, eg

drongo | 2020-11-15 06:59:05 | C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\src\port\pg_strong_random.c(96,11): warning C4013: 'RAND_poll' undefined; assuming extern returning int [C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\postgres.vcxproj]
drongo | 2020-11-15 06:59:05 | C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\src\port\pg_strong_random.c(96,11): warning C4013: 'RAND_poll' undefined; assuming extern returning int [C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\libpgport.vcxproj]
drongo | 2020-11-15 06:59:05 | C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\src\port\pg_strong_random.c(96,11): warning C4013: 'RAND_poll' undefined; assuming extern returning int [C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\postgres.vcxproj]
drongo | 2020-11-15 06:59:05 | C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\src\port\pg_strong_random.c(96,11): warning C4013: 'RAND_poll' undefined; assuming extern returning int [C:\prog\bf\root\HEAD\pgsql.build\libpgport.vcxproj]

(bowerbird and hamerkop are showing the same).

My first thought about it was that this bit is busted:

+#ifndef USE_OPENSSL
+ RAND_poll();
+#endif

The obvious problem with this is that if !USE_OPENSSL, we will not have
pulled in openssl's headers.

However ... all these machines are pointing at line 96, which is not
that one but the one under "#if defined(USE_OPENSSL)". So I'm not sure
what to make of that, except that a bit more finesse seems required.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2020-11-15 18:22:59 Re: list of extended statistics on psql
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2020-11-15 15:51:34 Re: Online checksums patch - once again