[PATCH 2/3] treewide: use wpad-basic-wolfssl as default

[Stijn Segers]

Hi Petr,

Op zaterdag 25 juli 2020 om 10u08 schreef Petr Štetiar <ynezz at true.cz>:
> mail at adrianschmutzler.de <mail at adrianschmutzler.de> [2020-07-24 
> 17:36:08]:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>>  I would prefer to not touch ar71xx here, as this is essentially 
>> only used
>>  for backporting, and changing stuff would only make these backports 
>> more
>>  complicated, while not really providing a benefit. (I'm not sure 
>> whether it
>>  can be still built with master at all.)
> 
> ok, noted.
> 
>>  Despite, is my impression correct that this patchset won't affect 
>> the size
>>  of pure "tiny" targets, like ath79/tiny?
> 
> Good catch. It was all just done with git grep & sed replacing 
> wpad-basic with
> wpad-basic-wolfssl, so this targets were missed as they're using 
> wpad-mini.

I read Adrian's reply as 'we'll keep ath79/tiny out of the wpad SSL 
push?' but I
might be mistaken of course.

> I'm going to switch those to wpad-basic-wolfssl variant as well, 
> since it
> seems that the only difference is CONFIG_IEEE80211R=n in wpad-mini.
> 

I think that will kill even more tiny images (master has been seeing a 
lot of those
being disabled lately). On my TL-WR841ND v7, e.g., I have stripped some 
more stuff
from master, after the 5.4 bump (which was to be expected). I was able 
to squeeze
in wpad-basic again for the 802.11r (PPP removed though), but it's not 
like those tiny
targets have 20 kB to spare, from what I can tell.

(I heard through the grapevine older flash/RAM constrained devices 
might just stick
with kernel 4.19 btw? ath79/tiny is already on 5.4.)

Since ath79/tiny is a separate subtarget altogether, it makes sense to 
offer them with
fewer features. Unless I'm mistaken we'll see a lot of 
ramips/mt76{20,x8} stuff going
the same route in the near future, they have similar flash constraints. 
I don't think
feature parity with more recent targets (or ones with more space) is 
what one should
aim for, with a separate subtarget.


Just my 2 cents.

Stijn

P.S. Is there a way to use mbedtTLS with wpad? That would be neat since 
one could have
LuCI SSL and wpad lean on the same crypto library. I am now building 
images with mbedTLS
for LuCI and wolfssl for wpad; it's still smaller than having both 
build with OpenSSL
but a bit cumbersome nonetheless.


> Adding SAE (as all images should support WPA3-Personal from now on) 
> is adding
> way more to the images, so excluding 802.11r doesn't make sense as 
> the size
> difference would be probably negligible compared to the size of 
> wolfSSL,
> certificates etc.
> 
> -- ynezz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> openwrt-devel mailing list
> openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
> https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel