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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:17 UTC