Bug 2354856 - Review Request: wolfssl - Lightweight SSL/TLS library written in ANSI C
Summary: Review Request: wolfssl - Lightweight SSL/TLS library written in ANSI C
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-03-25 13:34 UTC by Andrew Bauer
Modified: 2025-03-25 14:49 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Andrew Bauer 2025-03-25 13:34:26 UTC
Spec URL:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/wolfssl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08818627-wolfssl/wolfssl.spec

SRPM URL: 
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/kni/wolfssl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08818627-wolfssl/wolfssl-5.7.6-1.fc43.src.rpm

Description:
The wolfSSL embedded SSL library (formerly CyaSSL) is a lightweight SSL/TLS
library written in ANSI C and targeted for embedded, RTOS, and
resource-constrained environments - primarily because of its small size,
speed, and feature set. It is commonly used in standard operating environments
as well because of its royalty-free pricing and excellent cross platform
support. wolfSSL supports industry standards up to the current TLS 1.3 and
DTLS 1.3, is up to 20 times smaller than OpenSSL, and offers progressive
ciphers such as ChaCha20, Curve25519, Blake2b and Post-Quantum TLS 1.3 groups.
User bench-marking and feedback reports dramatically better performance when
using wolfSSL over OpenSSL.

wolfSSL is powered by the wolfCrypt cryptography library. Two versions of
wolfCrypt have been FIPS 140-2 validated (Certificate #2425 and certificate
#3389). FIPS 140-3 validation is in progress. For additional information,
visit the wolfCrypt FIPS FAQ or contact fips.

Fedora Account System Username:
kni

RPMLINT:
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 6

wolfssl.src: E: spelling-error ('wolfCrypt', '%description -l en_US wolfCrypt -> wolf Crypt, wolf-crypt, Cryptozoic')
wolfssl.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wolfCrypt', '%description -l en_US wolfCrypt -> wolf Crypt, wolf-crypt, Cryptozoic')
wolfssl-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wolfssl-config
wolfssl.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libwolfssl.so.43.0.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 40 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 2.6 s 


RPMLINT RESPONSES:
>wolfssl.src: E: spelling-error ('wolfCrypt', '%description -l en_US wolfCrypt -> wolf Crypt, wolf-crypt, Cryptozoic')
>wolfssl.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('wolfCrypt', '%description -l en_US wolfCrypt -> wolf Crypt, wolf-crypt, Cryptozoic')

This is the proper name of the project, thus these errors can be ignored

>wolfssl-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary wolfssl-config

wolfssl-config is dynamically created during configure. The authors have not provided a man page for this executable. This is by design:
https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/blob/master/debian/include.am#L60

>wolfssl.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/libwolfssl.so.43.0.0 SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list

Fedora Packaging Reference:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CryptoPolicies/

This version of Wolfssl has been built with a new --with-sys-crypto-policy flag, which is intended to satisfy Fedora crypto policies.
Additional backgound will be provided in the next post

Comment 1 Andrew Bauer 2025-03-25 13:34:49 UTC
I have worked with the upstream project to create --with-sys-crypto-policy.
This feature was added specifically to satisfy Fedora's crypto policies.

Details can be viewed here:
https://github.com/wolfSSL/wolfssl/pull/8205

Note, per Fesco 3267, this review request requires approval with FPC
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3267


QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION:
with-sys-crypto-policy merely adds the ability to read the config file /etc/crypto-policies/back-ends/wolfssl.config.
It does not provide the provide the config file itself.

What kind of additional tests are needed to demonstrate fedora crypto policies are respected?
Should I file a bug report against crypto-policies package, to add a default crypo policy config file for wolfssl?

Comment 2 Fedora Review Service 2025-03-25 13:53:57 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8818712
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2354856-wolfssl/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08818712-wolfssl/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wolfssl
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 3 Andrew Bauer 2025-03-25 14:02:45 UTC
Thanks for the response, Fabio.

That's correct, wolfssl was previously approved, and I am the package maintainer:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/wolfssl

At the time, I mistakenly thought I had approval to proceed from the Fedora Security Team when in fact I did not.
WolfSSL was unapproved, with the instruction to repeat the package review process after wolfssl can be made compliant with crypto policies.
Details are here: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3267


If there is something different I need to do, please let me know. I hope we don't have to submit this review under a different name.

Comment 4 Andrew Bauer 2025-03-25 14:32:40 UTC
Whoops, that response was from the automated Fedora Review Service, not Fabio.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.