Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

[Eric McCorkle]

On 08/03/2018 04:44, Warner Losh wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk at mit.edu
> <mailto:kaduk at mit.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 10:05:28AM -0400, Eric McCorkle wrote:
>     > On 08/01/2018 09:02, Warner Losh wrote:
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018, 12:31 PM Eric McCorkle
>     <eric at metricspace.net <mailto:eric at metricspace.net>
>     > > <mailto:eric at metricspace.net <mailto:eric at metricspace.net>>> wrote:
>     > >
>     > >     Hi folks,
>     > >
>     > >     I'm wondering what's the status of OpenSSL 1.1.1 integration
>     into base?
>     > >     More specifically, is there a repo or a branch that's
>     started the
>     > >     integration?  I'm aware of the wiki page and the list of
>     port build
>     > >     issues, but that seems to be based on replacing the base
>     OpenSSL with a
>     > >     port build (similar to the way one replaces it with LibreSSL).
>     > >
>     > >     I have some work I'd like to do that's gating on sorting out the
>     > >     kernel/loader crypto situation, and I'd very much like to
>     see OpenSSL
>     > >     1.1.1 get merged, so I can start to look into doing that.
>     > >
>     > >
>     > > There are patches to use bear SSL for the loader. OpenSSL is
>     simply too
>     > > large to use due to limits the loader operates under.
>     >
>     > I was going to look into the feasibility of doing something like what
>     > LibreSSL does with portable, where they extract a subset of the full
>     > library designed to be embedded in the kernel, loader, etc.
>     >
>     > I think it ought to be possible to do something like that, but it
>     really
>     > ought to be done in a tree with 1.1.1 integrated.
>     >
> 
>     It wouldn't be terribly easy or effective, IMO.  OpenSSL wasn't designed
>     with such modularity in mind.
> 
> 
> Others that have tried have found OpenSSL to be way too large for the
> boot loader and a completely impossible to subset enough to get things
> small enough due to the intertwingled nature of things.

To what extent, if any, does this change in 1.1.1, though?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20180803/8863d33a/attachment-0001.sig>