Re: Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

Warner Losh
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018, 12:31 PM Eric McCorkle <[hidden email]> 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.

Warner

Incidentally, if there's something I can do to help out with integrating
> 1.1.1 into base, I'd potentially be interested.
>
>
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

Eric McCorkle-2
On 08/01/2018 09:02, Warner Losh wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Aug 1, 2018, 12:31 PM Eric McCorkle <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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.


signature.asc (235 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

Warner Losh
On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

Eric McCorkle-2
On 08/03/2018 04:44, Warner Losh wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
>     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> 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?


signature.asc (235 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1

Benjamin Kaduk-2
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 07:02:18AM -0400, Eric McCorkle wrote:

> On 08/03/2018 04:44, Warner Losh wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:45 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[hidden email]
> > <mailto:[hidden email]>> 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
> >     <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> >     > > <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> 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?
>

Probably not enough -- while libssl got a bit reorganized, libcrypto hasn't
changed much.

-Ben

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"