Re: disabled SSL log_like tests

> On 7 May 2025, at 18:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>>> On 7 May 2025, at 06:34, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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