svn commit: r348482 - stable/11/sys/netipsec

[Warner Losh]

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 4:36 PM John Baldwin <jhb at freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 5/31/19 1:26 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > Author: jhb
> > Date: Fri May 31 20:26:56 2019
> > New Revision: 348482
> > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/348482
> >
> > Log:
> >   MFC 348205:
> >   Add deprecation warnings for IPsec algorithms deprecated in RFC 8221.
> >
> >   All of these algorithms are either explicitly marked MUST NOT, or they
> >   are implicitly MUST NOTs by virtue of not being included in IETF's
> >   list of protocols at all despite having assignments from IANA.
> >
> >   Specifically, this adds warnings for the following ciphers:
> >   - des-cbc
> >   - blowfish-cbc
> >   - cast128-cbc
> >   - des-deriv
> >   - des-32iv
> >   - camellia-cbc
> >
> >   Warnings for the following authentication algorithms are also added:
> >   - hmac-md5
> >   - keyed-md5
> >   - keyed-sha1
> >   - hmac-ripemd160
> >
> >   Approved by:        re (gjb)
>
> Sigh, so I just noticed while testing an MFC of another commit that adds
> deprecation warnings (GELI) that these warnings don't actually fire in 11
> because gone_in(13, ...) only warns on 12.x and later:
>
> void
> _gone_in(int major, const char *msg)
> {
>
>         gone_panic(major, P_OSREL_MAJOR(__FreeBSD_version), msg);
>         if (P_OSREL_MAJOR(__FreeBSD_version) >= major)
>                 printf("Obsolete code will removed soon: %s\n", msg);
>         else if (P_OSREL_MAJOR(__FreeBSD_version) + 1 == major)
>                 printf("Deprecated code (to be removed in FreeBSD %d):
> %s\n",
>                     major, msg);
> }
>
> I guess we could make the later test unconditional on stable/11 (and
> possibly
> make that change on HEAD and MFC it)?  I think I understand why we did that
> originally (you could MFC warnings back to older branches without annoying
> users to keep code in sync), but I wonder if in practice we don't want the
> warnings always enabled?
>

"It seemed like a  good idea at the time" I think is why we did it, but it
turns out that it's not such a good idea. I agree: we should always warn in
older branches because latter-day releases of those branches will be
proximate to the removal time in major + 2. This is a perfect example of
this.

Warner