On Tuesday, 20 October 2015, 15:00, William Roberts <bill.c.roberts@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >On Oct 20, 2015 7:46 AM, "Stephen Smalley" <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 10/20/2015 08:27 AM, Richard Haines wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Monday, 19 October 2015, 19:10, Stephen Smalley <sds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 10/18/2015 11:00 AM, Richard Haines wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, 18 October 2015, 15:07, Dominick Grift >>>> >>>> <dac.override@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>> >>>>>> Hash: SHA512 >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:48:12PM +0000, Richard Haines wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I added openssl to libselinux to support the new >>>> >>>> selabel_digest(3) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not aware of any issues between openssl and gnutls, >>>> >>>> however as >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> selabel_digest was only added last week I guess not much testing. >>>>>>> Well apart from myself as I'm currently adding the >>>> >>>> selinux_restorecon >>>>>>> >>>>>>> feature that makes use of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for clarifying, I am not hitting any issues with it just >>>>>> wondering if instead of openssl, gnutls could be used for this and if >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> so, if this should be somehow supported or not. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I tried using gnutls after I read your initial email, however I >>>>> could not find a way to generate the same digest as openssl >>>>> (I changed the SHA1 function to gnutls_hmac_fast(3) with various >>>>> algorithms and used the selabel_digest util to compare digests). >>>>> It could be that I should use some other function but I could >>>>> >>>>> not find any useful info on this (including web searches). >>>>> If anyone knows how to resolve this please let me know. >>>>> >>>>> I guess what is supported (openssl or gnutls) would be down to >>>>> the maintainers. >>>> >>>> >>>> Wondering if dependency on openssl might be a license issue for Debian >>>> or others. Apparently openssl license is considered GPL-incompatible >>>> [1] [2], and obviously libselinux is linked by a variety of GPL-licensed >>>> programs. Fedora seems to view this as falling under the system library >>>> exception [3] but not clear that other distributions would view it that >>>> way. On the other hand, using gnutls would be subject to the reverse >>>> problem; it would make libselinux depend on a LGPL library, and that >>>> could create issues for non-GPL programs that statically link >>>> libselinux. We might need to revert this change and revisit how to >>> >>> >>>> solve this in a manner that avoids such issues. >>> >>> >>> >>> Would building with the Android mincrypt SHA functions help regarding the >>> licensing issues ??? I've attached a quick patch that seems to work okay >>> using Android system/core/libmincrypt/sha.c >> >> >> That looks BSD-licensed and thus broadly compatible. We would need to amend libselinux/LICENSE to add that license information and we would need to hide those functions from being exposed outside of the library. Other alternative would be to look for a public domain SHA implementation and use that. >> I've found a simple implementation at www.ghostscript.com/doc/jbig2dec/sha1.c I'll try that first and if fails CryptLib will be next. >> >Will CryptLib work: >http://unlicense.org/ > > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Selinux mailing list >> Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >> To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. >> To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >. > > > _______________________________________________ Selinux mailing list Selinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe, send email to Selinux-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx. To get help, send an email containing "help" to Selinux-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
