[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 1/2] package/libopenssl: Copy the crypto include files

[Alistair Francis]

On Sun, Aug 6, 2023 at 9:49 AM Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 11:48:31 +1000
> Alistair Francis <alistair23 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/package/libopenssl/libopenssl.mk b/package/libopenssl/libopenssl.mk
> > index 06eac8f3d9..c66a842cdf 100644
> > --- a/package/libopenssl/libopenssl.mk
> > +++ b/package/libopenssl/libopenssl.mk
> > @@ -126,6 +126,10 @@ endef
> >
> >  define LIBOPENSSL_INSTALL_STAGING_CMDS
> >       $(TARGET_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) -C $(@D) DESTDIR=$(STAGING_DIR) install
> > +     mkdir -p $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/crypto
> > +     $(INSTALL) -m 644 $(@D)/include/crypto/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/crypto/
> > +     mkdir -p $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/internal
> > +     $(INSTALL) -m 644 $(@D)/include/internal/* $(STAGING_DIR)/usr/include/internal/
>
> I'm still quite concerned about this. Why the heck does libspdm require
> the internal/private headers of OpenSSL, and no other package needs
> that? It seems very odd, and potentially very wrong. One can assume
> such internal headers expose internal APIs that don't have the same
> backward compatibility guarantees as public APIs.

Yeah, you are right. I'm going to work with upstream libspdm to remove
the requirement on these and then I'll try again.

Alistair

>
> What makes libspdm so special? Is there any potential side effect of
> exposing those OpenSSL private/internal headers to the wider world, as
> your patch does?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas
> --
> Thomas Petazzoni, co-owner and CEO, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering and training
> https://bootlin.com