Re: Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <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>> 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.

Warner