Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 2 Jun 2015 11:07:02 -0400
From:      Ryan Steinmetz <zi@freebsd.org>
To:        Adam McDougall <mcdouga9@egr.msu.edu>
Cc:        Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Fwd: Re: svn commit: r386904 - in head/www/apache22: . files
Message-ID:  <20150602150702.GB62387@exodus.zi0r.com>
In-Reply-To: <556DC53D.8000208@egr.msu.edu>
References:  <20150531132958.GB1034@egr.msu.edu> <556CB6C8.2070103@FreeBSD.org> <20150602115116.GA62387@exodus.zi0r.com> <556DC53D.8000208@egr.msu.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Adam,

Does this work for you with openssl?  I'm unable to re-create this on my
side, but I'm also not testing with libressl.

It isn't simply renaming them.  There's a perl script that gets called
at build time that generates everything.  During the build phase, you
should see a pair of messages indicating that it is generating the two
DH param files.  It should take a few minutes.

The reason for the "rename" is to allow the search/replace magic in the
perl to search/replace.

Please send me the full build log.

-r

On (06/02/15 11:01), Adam McDougall wrote:
>It still didn't work.  Cannot load
>/usr/local/libexec/apache22/mod_ssl.so into server:
>/usr/local/libexec/apache22/mod_ssl.so: Undefined symbol "get_dh2048"
>
>Additionally I'm concerned about the validity of renaming small primes
>and using them as if they were for much larger dh.  When I do google
>searches for dh3072_p and dh2048_p I find larger sets of numbers.
>Renaming the existing primes doesn't feel right and worries me.
>
>On 06/02/2015 07:51, Ryan Steinmetz wrote:
>> Adam,
>>
>> Please test the following patch.  It should be placed in the files
>> directory and should resolve the error you saw.
>>
>> https://people.freebsd.org/~zi/patch-modules_ssl_ssl__engine__dh.c
>>
>> You can then build the build as usual after running a 'make clean'
>>
>> -r
>>
>> On (06/01/15 14:47), Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> On 5/31/2015 8:29 AM, Adam McDougall wrote:
>>>> Is anyone else getting this issue?  I had to revert the change on my
>>>> systems.
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes it looks incomplete. Nothing is providing get_dh2048.
>>>
>>>> work/httpd-2.2.29/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_dh.c:static DH *get_dh512(void)
>>>> work/httpd-2.2.29/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_dh.c:static DH
>>>> *get_dh1024(void)
>>>> work/httpd-2.2.29/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_dh.c:        dh = get_dh2048();
>>>> work/httpd-2.2.29/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_dh.c:        dh = get_dh3072();
>>>> work/httpd-2.2.29/modules/ssl/ssl_engine_dh.c:        dh = get_dh3072();
>>>
>>> The module is only providing 512 and 1024 but not 2048 and 3072 symbols.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Bryan Drewery
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Ryan Steinmetz
PGP: 9079 51A3 34EF 0CD4 F228  EDC6 1EF8 BA6B D028 46D7



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150602150702.GB62387>