> On 1 Nov 2020, at 14:13, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> I've been looking through the new patch set, in particular the testing
> setup.
Thanks!
> The way it seems to proceed is to use the existing openssl generated
> certificates and imports them into NSS certificate databases. That seems
> fine to bootstrap testing,
That's pretty much why I opted for using the existing certs: to bootstrap the
patch and ensure OpenSSL-backend compatibility.
> but it seems to me it would be more sound not
> to rely on openssl at all. I'd rather see the Makefile containing
> commands to create these from scratch, which mirror the openssl
> variants. IOW you should be able to build and test this from scratch,
> including certificate generation, without having openssl installed at all.
I don't disagree with this, but I do also believe there is value in testing all
TLS backends with exactly the same certificates to act as a baseline. The
nssfiles target should definitely be able to generate from scratch, but maybe a
combination is the best option?
Being well versed in the buildfarm code, do you have an off-the-cuff idea on
how to do cross library testing such that OpenSSL/NSS compatibility can be
ensured? Andres was floating the idea of making a single sourcetree be able to
have both for testing but more discussion is needed to settle on a way forward.
> I also notice that the invocations to pk12util don't contain the "sql:"
> prefix to the -d option, even though the database was created with that
> prefix a few lines above. That seems like a mistake from my reading of
> the pk12util man page.
Fixed in the attached v16, which also drops the parts of the patchset which
have been submitted separately to -hackers (the sslinfo patch hunks are still
there are they are required).
cheers ./daniel
