Hi Tom, > > On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:39:02PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > Hello Wolfgang, > > > > Thanks for taking the time with this > > > > > > > > There is LibreSSL as well which is a fork of openssl. Guess that too > > > > should > > > > be fine. What would be the more preferred solution here. The relevant > > > > bits > > > > can be imported from the kernel code into u-boot, or there can be a > > > > solution with linking of ssl/tls library with u-boot. Which would be the > > > > more preferred solution. It'd be great if the maintainers can comment on > > > > this. Thanks. > > > > > > I'd go for the Linux kernel code. A number of issues we have here > > > (cross compiling, code size, license compatibility, long term > > > maintenance efforts) have already been considered there, so why > > > should we duplicate all these efforts? And if we did, is there any > > > clear benefit from doing this? > > Well someone has to port the linux code in U-Boot and maintain it though. > > > > The LibreSSL proposal was made with some of these in mind. > > We don't expect the licence to ever change (which is compatible) > > and it's being maintained. > > I am not sure on the portability status, but i think it runs on all major > > architectures. > > > > I'd imagine this lifts the maintenance burden from U-Boot. On the other > > hand we'll rely on an external library to offer the functionality. > > I don't see how using LibreSSL instead of Linux kernel code would have a > lesser maintenance burden, sorry. If anything, given the number of > parts of the code we have today that come from the Linux kernel, adding > one more to the "keep in sync, or at least port bugfixes" list is less > than "add a new external project to keep an eye on". > Right then we know what we have to do. Kernel code it is.
Thanks a lot /Ilias _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot