Bug 2112615
| Summary: | Additional configuration not correctly appended / results in misconfiguration of openssl | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Leon Fauster <leonfauster> |
| Component: | crypto-policies | Assignee: | Alexander Sosedkin <asosedki> |
| Status: | CLOSED EOL | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 36 | CC: | asosedki, crypto-team, luk.claes, rrelyea, tm |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2023-05-25 15:39:22 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Leon Fauster
2022-07-31 01:16:27 UTC
Include the section name as well in your local.d file? ``` [crypto_policy] Ciphersuites = TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:TLS_AES_128_CCM_SHA256 ``` Are multiple sections in openssl.cnf supported? Are they internally appended then? A first test shows that your suggestion works on F36 (openssl-3.0.5-1.fc36.x86_64). Is this backward compatible to RHEL8 (openssl-1.1.1k) and 9 (openssl-3.0.1)? Thanks. I don't see the behaviour of multiple sections spelled out explicitly in the openssl docs, guess that'd be a question for openssl upstream. RHEL-9 should not deviate from Fedora in this regard. RHEL-8 might be different. I don't really see what to change here on the crypto-policies, the advertized feature to concatenate something onto the config is a pretty low-level one. Could it be closed in favor of clarifying multi-section behaviour of the openssl parser or do you have any specific proposals for crypto-policies specifically? Initially not in particular but taking a look at how the composition of the configuration is done; shows that it could be more clearly of what to expect. What I mean is the include stanza in /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf that implies a certain section context (in this case [crypto_policy]). Reading this file I would assume that the included content belongs to section crypto_policy. But what happens is that (the package) crypto-policies injects additional sections. The first idea that came up here was; why not add a include stanza for every section that comes from (the package) crypto-policies. [ crypto_policy ] .include = /etc/crypto-policies/back-ends/opensslcnf.config [openssl_init] .include = /etc/crypto-policies/back-ends/opensslcnf.openssl_init.config [evp_properties] .include = /etc/crypto-policies/back-ends/opensslcnf.evp_properties.config This would elevate the transparency of what to expect, though. Not a fan, honestly, that'd introduce more synchronization with openssl. Maybe we could go the other way around and move `[ crypto_policy ]` into opensslcnf.config, would that improve clarity? Sure, not that smart. Well, to isolate it locally I just see following. Each section has a set of items that belongs to that corresponding section. Instead concatenating just the contents of local.d/opensslcnf-file.config, take the content and "filter" it by "items of section" and then concatenate it section wise ... That'd overcomplicate what local.d does by an order of magnitude, while possibly losing some of what it offers currently in the process. Plus I don't see what it offers over putting section headers right into it. This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 36 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 36 on 2023-05-16. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '36'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 36 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed. Fedora Linux 36 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2023-05-16. Fedora Linux 36 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora Linux please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see the version field. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an active release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |