thr3ads.net - freebsd security - Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1 [Aug 2018]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Warner Losh

2018-Aug-03 08:44 UTC

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

Eric McCorkle

2018-Aug-03 11:02 UTC

head link

Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

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-security/attachments/20180803/8863d33a/attachment.sig>

freebsd security - Aug 2018 - Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1