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