3 ms·
Yeah, but not surprising: OpenSSL is generally considered to be rather poorly written, from reinventing their own memory allocators, poorly, to layers upon laye
by ori_b 7y ago
Yeah, but not surprising: OpenSSL is generally considered to be rather poorly written, from reinventing their own memory allocators, poorly, to layers upon layers of performance-sucking wrappers, to just bizzare and convoluted design decisons.
I'd be far more interested in seeing comparisons to, eg, BearSSL.
- mschuster91 7y agoThe thing is openssl runs on so many platforms, which may or may not guarantee anything except a barely working malloc/free, so it makes sense to ship a custom allocator.
- ori_b 7y agoWhich ones?
- tptacek 7y agoNote well: that was the prevailing (and probably correct) opinion a few years ago, but OpenSSL's quality has by most accounts improved dramatically over the last few years. I wouldn't talk someone out of using BearSSL, but if you're writing code that has to depend on a C-language TLS library, OpenSSL is a sane first choice.
- bluejekyll 7y agoI’ve reviewed OpenSSL code somewhat recently and agree that it’s vastly improved. Though, if you want something based on Rustls with C bindings (I have no involvement in this project) there is: https://github.com/mesalock-linux/mesalink https://github.com/mesalock-linux/mesalink That’s OpenSSL compatible bindings into Rustls.