enable openssl-argon2 by default #19360
Open
+7
−5
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
20 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation here is that "libargon2" has seen very little maintenance over the years, as it was mostly a reference implementation for the password hashing contest, while OpenSSL is actively developed.
OpenSSL 3.2 is widely supported and means that "libargon2" support could be dropped in the long term. Note that if the value was not explicitly enabled, it will silently disable in case openssl >= 3.2 cannot be found. In case it was explicitly passed with
--with-openssl-argon2, it will fail like it did before.One thing I'm not sure about is what will happen when --with-password-argon2 and --with-openssl-argon2 are passed. I suspect the "libargon2" implementation will be used, but I'm not sure if it's sensible to change that.
Since this does not affect userland, I haven't created an RFC. I'm generally open to votes on whether this should or shouldn't be done.