Apache 2.4.57 update issue (solved)

itsensellc

Verified User
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
53
I'm trying to update Apache 2.4.55 to 2.4.57 and I'm running into a weird issue I don't understand. At the point of failure this is what I'm seeing:

modules/ssl/.libs/libmod_ssl.a(ssl_engine_init.o): In function `ssl_init_ctx_tls_extensions':
ssl_engine_init.c:(.text+0x1596): undefined reference to `SRP_VBASE_new'
ssl_engine_init.c:(.text+0x1673): undefined reference to `SRP_VBASE_init'
ssl_engine_init.c:(.text+0x1715): undefined reference to `SSL_CTX_set_srp_username_callback'
ssl_engine_init.c:(.text+0x172c): undefined reference to `SSL_CTX_set_srp_cb_arg'
modules/ssl/.libs/libmod_ssl.a(ssl_engine_init.o): In function `ssl_init_ctx_cleanup':
ssl_engine_init.c:(.text+0x473c): undefined reference to `SRP_VBASE_free'
modules/ssl/.libs/libmod_ssl.a(ssl_engine_kernel.o): In function `ssl_hook_Access_classic':
ssl_engine_kernel.c:(.text+0x17b8): undefined reference to `SSL_get_srp_username'
modules/ssl/.libs/libmod_ssl.a(ssl_engine_kernel.o): In function `ssl_callback_SRPServerParams':
ssl_engine_kernel.c:(.text+0x8a63): undefined reference to `SSL_get_srp_username'
ssl_engine_kernel.c:(.text+0x8a88): undefined reference to `SRP_VBASE_get_by_user'
ssl_engine_kernel.c:(.text+0x8ade): undefined reference to `SSL_set_srp_server_param'
modules/ssl/.libs/libmod_ssl.a(ssl_engine_vars.o): In function `ssl_var_lookup_ssl':
ssl_engine_vars.c:(.text+0x147d): undefined reference to `SSL_get_srp_username'
ssl_engine_vars.c:(.text+0x14d1): undefined reference to `SSL_get_srp_userinfo'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status
make[1]: *** [httpd] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/directadmin/custombuild/httpd-2.4.57'
make: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
*** The make has failed. Exiting...


All forum searching/googling I've done seems to point at removing custom versions of openssl. But this system isn't using anything custom. It's using the latest CentOS 7 @updates channel build - 1.0.2k-26.el7_9. So I'm really puzzled as to what is going on. Any ideas on how to troubleshoot this one?
 
How did you get that info? Mine just says: OpenSSL 1.0.2k-fips on the Centos 7 servers.

What if you reinstall openssl and try again, would that fix anything?

I ran "yum list installed | grep openssl" which yields:

openssl.x86_64 1:1.0.2k-26.el7_9 @updates
openssl-devel.x86_64 1:1.0.2k-26.el7_9 @updates
openssl-libs.x86_64 1:1.0.2k-26.el7_9 @updates

I did try a reinstall of both openssl and openssl-devel - no dice.
 
It looks like this *may* be because the latest version of openssl-devel didn't include SRP support. Digging a little deeper into this.
 
first, trying with clean centos7 OS. if it cause by OS or not.
 
Oh seems you are fine.
Code:
[root@server23: ~]# yum list installed | grep openssl
openssl.x86_64                      1:1.0.2k-26.el7_9                  @updates
openssl-devel.x86_64                1:1.0.2k-26.el7_9                  @updates
openssl-libs.x86_64                 1:1.0.2k-26.el7_9                  @updates
So also the -devel and the -libs are present. Seems we got the same version.

I just used "openssl version" to see the version.

But yes, this is the latest OpenSSL for Centos 7.9.
 
By the way, maybe it's a bug, there are some guys having issues with upgrades from 2.4.55 to 2.4.57 on Almalinux too.

It's another error notice, but maybe it's related some way, as this is a higher version (Alma 8) compared to Centos 7.
 
I did try a reinstall of both openssl and openssl-devel - no dice.
I just seen this one:
modules/ssl/.libs/libmod_ssl.a(ssl_engine_init.o): In function `ssl_init_ctx_tls_extensions':
ssl_engine_init.c:(.text+0x1596): undefined reference to `SRP_VBASE_new'
Maybe it's good to try and reinstall the openssl-libs too. Can't harm anyway.
 
Well... it turns out I had openssl devel files in /usr/local/include. I have no earthly clue where they came from but I suspect it may have been the NOC supporting another issue. The compilation process was trying to compile mod_ssl against those instead of the ones from the official RPM's. So the original premise was right - I just didn't catch it! It actually should NOT have contained srp.h and it did.

All's well, that ends well.
 
Back
Top