From owner-freebsd-security@freebsd.org Sat Aug 4 22:09:03 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8811D1054952; Sat, 4 Aug 2018 22:09:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) Received: from dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu [18.9.25.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1367D8A914; Sat, 4 Aug 2018 22:09:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kaduk@mit.edu) X-AuditID: 1209190e-57fff70000007f9c-29-5b6622cb2425 Received: from mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu ( [18.9.21.43]) (using TLS with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by dmz-mailsec-scanner-3.mit.edu (Symantec Messaging Gateway) with SMTP id 85.A9.32668.CC2266B5; Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:03:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (OUTGOING-AUTH-1.MIT.EDU [18.9.28.11]) by mailhub-auth-3.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.9.2) with ESMTP id w74M3rZD021204; Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:03:54 -0400 Received: from kduck.kaduk.org (24-107-191-124.dhcp.stls.mo.charter.com [24.107.191.124]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.13.8/8.12.4) with ESMTP id w74M3nrs010151 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:03:51 -0400 Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2018 17:03:49 -0500 From: Benjamin Kaduk To: Eric McCorkle Cc: Warner Losh , FreeBSD Hackers , "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" , freebsd-current , freebsd-security Subject: Re: Status of OpenSSL 1.1.1 Message-ID: <20180804220349.GJ68224@kduck.kaduk.org> References: <20180802234519.GD68224@kduck.kaduk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrOKsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUixCmqrXtGKS3aYE+PoMW36X9ZLGZPn8Zk MefNByaL7Zv/MVr0bHrCZvF063JGBzaPD7u/snrM+DSfxePejglMAcxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJ XBmbWqQKdghXbLh5lrmB8SVvFyMnh4SAicSzTx8Zuxi5OIQEFjNJLNw4EcrZwChx9OgLZgjn CpPEv642li5GDg4WARWJ2WcVQLrZgMyG7svMIGERAQ2J+bsFQcqZBbqYJH5NOssCUiMMVNN9 6T4ziM0LtO3BqitQM98ySTzZ8oQNIiEocXLmE7AGZgEdiZ1b77CBDGUWkJZY/o8DIiwv0bx1 NtgcTgFnibe7v7KD2KICyhJ7+w6xT2AUnIVk0iwkk2YhTJqFZNICRpZVjLIpuVW6uYmZOcWp ybrFyYl5ealFusZ6uZkleqkppZsYwXEgybeDcVKD9yFGAQ5GJR7eEzxp0UKsiWXFlbmHGCU5 mJREeU0vp0QL8SXlp1RmJBZnxBeV5qQWH2KU4GBWEuH935AaLcSbklhZlVqUD5OS5mBREue9 VxMeLSSQnliSmp2aWpBaBJOV4eBQkuA9oQi0R7AoNT21Ii0zpwQhzcTBCTKcB2i4H0gNb3FB Ym5xZjpE/hSjLsef91MnMQux5OXnpUqJ81aBFAmAFGWU5sHNAaUviez9Na8YxYHeEuaVASYz IR5g6oOb9ApoCRPQkmoTkA+KSxIRUlINjOq3b4TMurCu6EJmaMvyo/0P3f9kfuZ9+fvwzDUf /Sbu1PjxjC3xj/O8kIeWGk9fROzpnvBS5JjzliaRPT5ZTUqz08+GsaTdkNgr1vU45NJhX/Oo KGcJUZfm2tmbLARzrm7devDNwTYdoeOZBiJKBzlWFn3plK0MY376uubx9EnN5ue7/x6J01Fi Kc5INNRiLipOBACMabjjOgMAAA== X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27 Precedence: list List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2018 22:09:03 -0000 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 > > 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 > > > > > > >> 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