Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fixes #35: Pin libcrypto and libssl dylibs only on Catalina #36

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Nov 21, 2019

Conversation

@worldwise001
Copy link
Contributor

worldwise001 commented Nov 21, 2019

Here's a possible fix to pin the versions at least on Catalina.

@wbond

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

wbond commented Nov 21, 2019

To get the Circle CI to pass we'll need to do this since Circle got rid of the 9.2.0 image: wbond/asn1crypto@d43d2b5.

@codecov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 21, 2019

Codecov Report

Merging #36 into master will decrease coverage by 0.18%.
The diff coverage is 75%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #36      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   85.11%   84.92%   -0.19%     
==========================================
  Files          68       68              
  Lines        9420     9428       +8     
==========================================
- Hits         8018     8007      -11     
- Misses       1402     1421      +19
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
oscrypto/_openssl/_libssl_cffi.py 87.5% <75%> (-2.5%) ⬇️
oscrypto/_openssl/_libcrypto_cffi.py 75% <75%> (ø) ⬆️
oscrypto/_win/tls.py 87.58% <0%> (-1.76%) ⬇️
oscrypto/_openssl/_libcrypto_ctypes.py 96.25% <0%> (-1.5%) ⬇️

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update a9f5774...03cecec. Read the comment docs.

@wbond

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

wbond commented Nov 21, 2019

So right now the libcrypto bindings assume that when we see LibreSSL that we have an OpenSSL 1.0.1 compatible API.

It looks like in LibreSSL 2.7 they started adding OpenSSL 1.0.2 and 1.1.0 APIs. Because of this I think it would be safest if we default to libcrypto.42.dylib and libssl.44.dylib.

Here is the version info I got for libssl on Catalina:

libssl.35.dylib:libressl-2.2
libssl.43.dylib:libressl-2.5
libssl.44.dylib:libressl-2.6
libssl.46.dylib:libressl-2.8
@worldwise001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

worldwise001 commented Nov 21, 2019

Oh interesting. I can change that. I assumed the numbers were the same.

@worldwise001 worldwise001 force-pushed the worldwise001:shh/oscrypto/bugfix branch 2 times, most recently from 301b3fe to 5ae3449 Nov 21, 2019
@worldwise001 worldwise001 force-pushed the worldwise001:shh/oscrypto/bugfix branch from 5ae3449 to 03cecec Nov 21, 2019
@worldwise001

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

worldwise001 commented Nov 21, 2019

wow I am usually much better at catching linter problems.

@wbond

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

wbond commented Nov 21, 2019

Thanks for all of the digging and the fix!

@wbond wbond merged commit a51929b into wbond:master Nov 21, 2019
3 of 5 checks passed
3 of 5 checks passed
codecov/patch 75% of diff hit (target 85.11%)
Details
codecov/project 84.92% (-0.19%) compared to a9f5774
Details
ci/circleci Your tests passed on CircleCI!
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.