[PATCH 0 of 1] Upstream: fix warning when building with BoringSSL

[Alessandro Ghedini]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 07:00:00PM +0300, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> Hello!
> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 03:37:48PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 05:19:02PM +0300, Maxim Dounin wrote:
> > > Hello!
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 03:10:46PM +0100, Alessandro Ghedini wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > I don't now what your current plans for supporting BoringSSL are, but its
> > > > API has been fairly stable for a while and this is the only change required
> > > > to make NGINX build with it again (the other issue with error definitions was
> > > > fixed in BoringSSL itself).
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think BoringSSL is going to change the API back, so NGINX migh want
> > > > to fix this if support for BoringSSL is desired (again, don't know your
> > > > opinion on this).
> > > > 
> > > > Please have a look and let me know what you think.
> > > 
> > > Quoting 
> > > http://mailman.nginx.org/pipermail/nginx-devel/2016-August/008680.html:
> > > 
> > > : Ok, this looks like the real reason for the patch.  This looks 
> > > : like an API change in BoringSSL, and should be threated 
> > > : accordingly.
> > > 
> > > : Given the number of various API changes BoringSSL introduces here 
> > > : and there - we probably don't want to follow, at least till some 
> > > : version is actually released.
> > 
> > Ok, thanks, I missed that. TBH I don't think the BoringSSL team intends to
> > release "proper" versions like OpenSSL does, so what you propose to wait for
> > might not actually ever happen.
> 
> Sure, and I'm fine with it.
> 
> > I understand your concern of wanting to target a fixed release, but as I
> > mentioned (and Piotr as well) BoringSSL's API seems to have been fairly stable
> > for a while (except for fixes like the one for the problem mentioned in the
> > patch you linked, which was worked around in BoringSSL itself), and AFAIK there
> > aren't other similar compatibility problems left except for this build warning
> > (but maybe Piotr could prove me wrong on that), so it might make sense to start
> > looking at supporting BoringSSL again.
> 
> Last time I looked into BoringSSL code due to ticket #993 several 
> months ago (https://trac.nginx.org/nginx/ticket/993), and my 
> impression wasn't that positive.

Ah, BoringSSL actually supports the new SSL_CTX_set1_curves_list() API that
NGINX already uses, but it doesn't seem to define SSL_CTRL_SET_CURVES_LIST
(yet) so the other API is picked. I'll make a patch for BoringSSL to fix this.

Cheers