Along the way, check the version against the cipher to make sure the
combination is possible.
(Found by fuzzing: a bad version trips an assert.)
Change-Id: Ib0a284fd5fd9b7ba5ceba63aa6224966282a2cb7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27265
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
(Imported from upstream's 7e6c0f56e65af0727d87615342df1272cd017e9f)
Change-Id: I1d060055c923f78311265510a3fbe17a34ecc1d4
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28084
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
The bug, courtesy of Wycheproof, is that AES key wrap requires the input
be at least two blocks, not one. This also matches the OpenSSL behavior
of those two APIs.
Update-Note: AES_wrap_key with in_len = 8 and AES_unwrap_key with
in_len = 16 will no longer work.
Change-Id: I5fc63ebc16920c2f9fd488afe8c544e0647d7507
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27925
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Change-Id: I0674f4e9b15b546237600fb2486c46aac7cb0716
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28027
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Montgomery multiplication post-conditions in some of code paths were
formally non-constant time. Cache access pattern was result-neutral,
but a little bit asymmetric, which might have produced a signal [if
processor reordered load and stores at run-time].
(Imported from upstream's 774ff8fed67e19d4f5f0df2f59050f2737abab2a.)
Change-Id: I77443fb79242b77e704c34d69f1de9e3162e9538
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27987
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(It complains that the comparison is always false with NDK r17 beta 2.)
Change-Id: I6b695fd0e86047f0c1e4267290e63db3184a958a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28025
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
|set| should be evaluated to determine whether to insert/append before
it is reused as a temporary variable.
When incrementing the |set| of X509_NAME_ENTRY, the inserted entry
should not be incremented.
Thanks to Ingo Schwarze for extensive debugging and the initial
fix.
(Imported from upstream bbf27cd58337116c57a1c942153330ff83d5540a)
Change-Id: Ib45d92fc6d52d7490b01d3c475eafc42dd6ef721
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28005
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
We've never defined this so this code has always been dead.
Change-Id: Ibcc4095bf812c7e1866c5f39968789606f0995ae
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28024
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27944 inadvertently caused
SHA256 and SHA384 aliases to be rejected in
SSL_CTX_set_strict_cipher_list. While this is the desired end state, in
case the removal needs to be reverted, we should probably defer this to
post-removal cleanup.
Otherwise we might update someone's "ALL:!SHA256" cipher string to
account for the removal, and then revert the removal underneath them.
Change-Id: Id516a27a2ecefb5871485d0ae18067b5bbb536bb
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28004
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
These are also not needed after the handshake.
Change-Id: I5de2d5cf18a3783a6c04c0a8fe311069fb51b939
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27986
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
The TLS 1.3 client logic used ctx instead. This is all moot as
SSL_set_SSL_CTX on a client really wouldn't work, but we should be
consistent. Unfortunately, this moves moving the pointer back to SSL
from SSL_CONFIG.
Change-Id: I45f8241e16f499ad416afd5eceb52dc82af9c4f4
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27985
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Per Brian, x25519_ge_frombytes_vartime does not match the usual
BoringSSL return value convention, and we're slightly inconsistent about
whether to mask the last byte with 63 or 127. (It then gets ANDed with
64, so it doesn't matter which.) Use 127 to align with the curve25519
RFC. Finally, when we invert the transformation, use the same constants
inverted so that they're parallel.
Bug: 243, 244
Change-Id: I0e3aca0433ead210446c58d86b2f57526bde1eac
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27984
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
All CBC ciphers in TLS are broken and insecure. TLS 1.2 introduced
AEAD-based ciphers which avoid their many problems. It also introduced
new CBC ciphers based on HMAC-SHA256 and HMAC-SHA384 that share the same
flaws as the original HMAC-SHA1 ones. These serve no purpose. Old
clients don't support them, they have the highest overhead of all TLS
ciphers, and new clients can use AEADs anyway.
Remove them from libssl. This is the smaller, more easily reverted
portion of the removal. If it survives a week or so, we can unwind a lot
more code elsewhere in libcrypto. This removal will allow us to clear
some indirect calls from crypto/cipher_extra/tls_cbc.c, aligning with
the recommendations here:
https://github.com/HACS-workshop/spectre-mitigations/blob/master/crypto_guidelines.md#2-avoid-indirect-branches-in-constant-time-code
Update-Note: The following cipher suites are removed:
- TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
- TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA256
- TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
- TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
- TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256
- TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384
Change-Id: I7ade0fc1fa2464626560d156659893899aab6f77
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27944
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Chrome needs to support renegotiation at TLS 1.2 + HTTP/1.1, but we're
free to shed the handshake configuration at TLS 1.3 or HTTP/2.
Rather than making config shedding implicitly disable renegotiation,
make the actual shedding dependent on a combination of the two settings.
If config shedding is enabled, but so is renegotiation (including
whether we are a client, etc.), leave the config around. If the
renegotiation setting gets disabled again after the handshake,
re-evaluate and shed the config then.
Bug: 123
Change-Id: Ie833f413b3f15b8f0ede617991e3fef239d4a323
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27904
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Matt Braithwaite <mab@google.com>
|SSL_CONFIG| is a container for bits of configuration that are
unneeded after the handshake completes. By default it is retained for
the life of the |SSL|, but it may be shed at the caller's option by
calling SSL_set_shed_handshake_config(). This is incompatible with
renegotiation, and with SSL_clear().
|SSL_CONFIG| is reachable by |ssl->config| and by |hs->config|. The
latter is always non-NULL. To avoid null checks, I've changed the
signature of a number of functions from |SSL*| arguments to
|SSL_HANDSHAKE*| arguments.
When configuration has been shed, setters that touch |SSL_CONFIG|
return an error value if that is possible. Setters that return |void|
do nothing.
Getters that request |SSL_CONFIG| values will fail with an |assert| if
the configuration has been shed. When asserts are compiled out, they
will return an error value.
The aim of this commit is to simplify analysis of split-handshakes by
making it obvious that some bits of state have no effects beyond the
handshake. It also cuts down on memory usage.
Of note: |SSL_CTX| is still reachable after the configuration has been
shed, and a couple things need to be retained only for the sake of
post-handshake hooks. Perhaps these can be fixed in time.
Change-Id: Idf09642e0518945b81a1e9fcd7331cc9cf7cc2d6
Bug: 123
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27644
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
This is prefactoring for a coming change to the shim that will write
handoff and handback messages (which are serialized SSLConnection
objects) to the transcript.
This breaks the slightly tenuous ordering between the runner and the
shim. Fix the runner to wait until the shim has exited before
appending the transcript.
Change-Id: Iae34d28ec1addfe3ec4f3c77008248fe5530687c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27184
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Unfortunately, this driver suffers a lot from Wycheproof's Java
heritgate, but so it goes. Their test formats bake in a lot of Java API
mistakes.
Change-Id: I3299e85efb58e99e4fa34841709c3bea6518968d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27865
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
This is to make it easier to correlate the two.
Change-Id: I62aa381499d67ae279bbe86eebeb9a5bc9ef5266
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27864
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Change-Id: Ib2ce220e31a4f808999934197a7f43b8723131e8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27884
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
DSA is deprecated and will ultimately be removed but, in the
meantime, it still ought to be tested.
Change-Id: I75af25430b8937a43b11dced1543a98f7a6fbbd3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27825
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
This works with basically no modifications.
Change-Id: I92f4d90f3c0ec8170d532cf7872754fadb36644d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27824
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Change-Id: I55428636dbed0543dd772d74fe256f5d092e55fe
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27704
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is slower, but constant-time. It intentionally omits the signed
digit optimization because we cannot be sure the doubling case will be
unreachable for all curves. This is a fallback generic implementation
for curves which we must support for compatibility but which are not
common or important enough to justify curve-specific work.
Before:
Did 814 ECDH P-384 operations in 1085384us (750.0 ops/sec)
Did 1430 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 1081988us (1321.6 ops/sec)
Did 308 ECDH P-521 operations in 1057741us (291.2 ops/sec)
Did 539 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 1049797us (513.4 ops/sec)
After:
Did 715 ECDH P-384 operations in 1080161us (661.9 ops/sec)
Did 1188 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 1069567us (1110.7 ops/sec)
Did 275 ECDH P-521 operations in 1060503us (259.3 ops/sec)
Did 506 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 1084739us (466.5 ops/sec)
But we're still faster than the old BIGNUM implementation. EC_FELEM
more than paid for both the loss of points_make_affine and this CL.
Bug: 239
Change-Id: I65d71a731aad16b523928ee47618822d503ea704
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27708
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
w=4 appears to be the correct answer for P-224 through P-521. There's
nominally some optimizations in here for 70- and 20-bit primes, but
that's absurd.
Change-Id: Id4ccec779b17e375e9258c1784e46d7d3651c59a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27707
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
EC_POINT is split into the existing public EC_POINT (where the caller is
sanity-checked about group mismatches) and the low-level EC_RAW_POINT
(which, like EC_FELEM and EC_SCALAR, assume that is your problem and is
a plain old struct). Having both EC_POINT and EC_RAW_POINT is a little
silly, but we're going to want different type signatures for functions
which return void anyway (my plan is to lift a non-BIGNUM
get_affine_coordinates up through the ECDSA and ECDH code), so I think
it's fine.
This wasn't strictly necessary, but wnaf.c is a lot tidier now. Perf is
a wash; once we get up to this layer, it's only 8 entries in the table
so not particularly interesting.
Bug: 239
Change-Id: I8ace749393d359f42649a5bb0734597bb7c07a2e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27706
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Replace them with asserts and better justify why each of the internal
cases are not reachable. Also change the loop to count up to bits+1 so
it is obvious there is no memory error. (The previous loop shape made
more sense when ec_compute_wNAF would return a variable length
schedule.)
Change-Id: I9c7df6abac4290b7a3e545e3d4aa1462108e239e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27705
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Along the way, add some utility functions for getting common things
(curves, hashes, etc.) in the names Wycheproof uses.
Change-Id: I09c11ea2970cf2c8a11a8c2a861d85396efda125
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27786
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
FileTest and Wycheproof express more-or-less the same things, so I've
just written a script to mechanically convert them. Saves writing a JSON
parser.
I've also left a TODO with other files that are worth converting. Per
Thai, the webcrypto variants of the files are just a different format
and will later be consolidated, so I've ignored those. The
curve/hash-specific ECDSA files and the combined one are intended to be
the same, so I've ignored the combined one. (Just by test counts, there
are some discrepancies, but Thai says he'll fix that and we can update
when that happens.)
Change-Id: I5fcbd5cb0e1bea32964b09fb469cb43410f53c2d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27785
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Chromium has some code which reaches into this field for memory
accounting.
This fixes a bug in doc.go where this line-wrapping confuses it. doc.go
needs a bit of a rewrite, but this is a bit better.
Change-Id: Ic9cc2c2fe9329d7bc366ccf91e0c9a92eae08ed2
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27764
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
This is just a pristine copy of the JSON files for now. It's not hooked
up to anything yet.
Change-Id: I608b4b0368578f159cad23950d70578ff4c23da3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27784
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Change-Id: I156552df15de5941be99736cca694db4677e2b2a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27744
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Rather than expose a (potentially) assembly function directly, wrap it
in a C function to make visibility control easier.
Change-Id: I4a2dfeb8999ff021b2e10fbc54850eeadabbefff
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27724
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
This introduces EC_FELEM, which is analogous to EC_SCALAR. It is used
for EC_POINT's representation in the generic EC_METHOD, as well as
random operations on tuned EC_METHODs that still are implemented
genericly.
Unlike EC_SCALAR, EC_FELEM's exact representation is awkwardly specific
to the EC_METHOD, analogous to how the old values were BIGNUMs but may
or may not have been in Montgomery form. This is kind of a nuisance, but
no more than before. (If p224-64.c were easily convertable to Montgomery
form, we could say |EC_FELEM| is always in Montgomery form. If we
exposed the internal add and double implementations in each of the
curves, we could give |EC_POINT| an |EC_METHOD|-specific representation
and |EC_FELEM| is purely a |EC_GFp_mont_method| type. I'll leave this
for later.)
The generic add and doubling formulas are aligned with the formulas
proved in fiat-crypto. Those only applied to a = -3, so I've proved a
generic one in https://github.com/mit-plv/fiat-crypto/pull/356, in case
someone uses a custom curve. The new formulas are verified,
constant-time, and swap a multiply for a square. As expressed in
fiat-crypto they do use more temporaries, but this seems to be fine with
stack-allocated EC_FELEMs. (We can try to help the compiler later,
but benchamrks below suggest this isn't necessary.)
Unlike BIGNUM, EC_FELEM can be stack-allocated. It also captures the
bounds in the type system and, in particular, that the width is correct,
which will make it easier to select a point in constant-time in the
future. (Indeed the old code did not always have the correct width. Its
point formula involved halving and implemented this in variable time and
variable width.)
Before:
Did 77274 ECDH P-256 operations in 10046087us (7692.0 ops/sec)
Did 5959 ECDH P-384 operations in 10031701us (594.0 ops/sec)
Did 10815 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 10087892us (1072.1 ops/sec)
Did 8976 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 10071038us (891.3 ops/sec)
Did 2600 ECDH P-521 operations in 10091688us (257.6 ops/sec)
Did 4590 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 10055195us (456.5 ops/sec)
Did 3811 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 10003574us (381.0 ops/sec)
After:
Did 77736 ECDH P-256 operations in 10029858us (7750.5 ops/sec) [+0.8%]
Did 7519 ECDH P-384 operations in 10068076us (746.8 ops/sec) [+25.7%]
Did 13335 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 10029962us (1329.5 ops/sec) [+24.0%]
Did 11021 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 10088600us (1092.4 ops/sec) [+22.6%]
Did 2912 ECDH P-521 operations in 10001325us (291.2 ops/sec) [+13.0%]
Did 5150 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 10027462us (513.6 ops/sec) [+12.5%]
Did 4264 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 10069694us (423.4 ops/sec) [+11.1%]
This more than pays for removing points_make_affine previously and even
speeds up ECDH P-256 slightly. (The point-on-curve check uses the
generic code.)
Next is to push the stack-allocating up to ec_wNAF_mul, followed by a
constant-time single-point multiplication.
Bug: 239
Change-Id: I44a2dff7c52522e491d0f8cffff64c4ab5cd353c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27668
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This does not appear to actually pull its weight. The purpose of this
logic is to switch some adds to the faster add_mixed in the wNAF code,
at the cost of a rather expensive inversion. This optimization kicks in
for generic curves, so P-384 and P-521:
With:
Did 32130 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 30077563us (1068.2 ops/sec)
Did 27456 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 30073086us (913.0 ops/sec)
Did 14122 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 30077407us (469.5 ops/sec)
Did 11973 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 30037330us (398.6 ops/sec)
Without:
Did 32445 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 30069721us (1079.0 ops/sec)
Did 27056 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 30032303us (900.9 ops/sec)
Did 13905 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 30000430us (463.5 ops/sec)
Did 11433 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 30021876us (380.8 ops/sec)
For single-point multiplication, the optimization is not useful. This
makes sense as we only have one table's worth of additions to convert
but still pay for the inversion. For double-point multiplication, it is
slightly useful for P-384 and very useful for P-521. However, the next
change to stack-allocate EC_FELEMs will more than compensate for
removing it. (The immediate goal here is to simplify the EC_FELEM
story.)
Additionally, that this optimization was not useful for single-point
multiplication implies that, should we wish to recover this, a modest
8-entry pre-computed (affine) base point table should have the same
effect or better.
Update-Note: I do not believe anything was calling either of these
functions. (If necessary, we can always add no-op stubs as whether a
point is affine is not visible to external code. It previously kicked in
some optimizations, but those were removed for constant-time needs
anyway.)
Bug: 239
Change-Id: Ic9c51b001c45595cfe592274c7d5d652f4234839
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27667
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
I don't think this lock is actually needed. If the process exited by the
time we call shim.Process.Kill(), then the test ultimately finished. If
not, wait() will return that the process died by a signal.
Change-Id: I668a86583aba16fd00e0cd05071acc13059a2c42
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27325
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(Imported from upstream's 753316232243ccbf86b96c1c51ffcb41651d9ad5.)
Just to sync up a bit further.
Change-Id: I805150d0f0c10d68648fae83603b0d46231ae4ec
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27685
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
If the caller asked for the base to be treated as secret, we should
provide that. Allowing unbounded inputs is not compatible with being
constant-time.
Additionally, this aligns with the guidance here:
https://github.com/HACS-workshop/spectre-mitigations/blob/master/crypto_guidelines.md#1-do-not-conditionally-choose-between-constant-and-non-constant-time
Update-Note: BN_mod_exp_mont_consttime and BN_mod_exp_mont now require
inputs be fully reduced. I believe current callers tolerate this.
Additionally, due to a quirk of how certain operations were ordered,
using (publicly) zero exponent tolerated a NULL BN_CTX while other
exponents required non-NULL BN_CTX. Non-NULL BN_CTX is now required
uniformly. This is unlikely to cause problems. Any call site where the
exponent is always zero should just be replaced with BN_value_one().
Change-Id: I7c941953ea05f36dc2754facb9f4cf83a6789c61
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27665
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
As the point may be the output of some private key operation, whether Z
accidentally hit one is secret.
Bug: 239
Change-Id: I7db34cd3b5dd5ca4b96980e8993a9b4eda49eb88
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27664
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
We have little-endian BIGNUM functions now.
Change-Id: Iffc46a14e75c6bba2e170b824b1a08c69d2e9d18
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27594
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
This is adapted from upstream's
eb7916960bf50f436593abe3d5f2e0592d291017.
This gives a 22% win for ECDSA signing. (Upstream cites 30-40%, but they
are unnecessarily using BN_mod_exp_mont_consttime in their generic path.
The exponent is public. I expect part of their 30-40% is just offsetting
this.)
Did 506000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 25044595us (20204.0 ops/sec)
Did 170506 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 25033567us (6811.1 ops/sec)
Did 618000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 25031294us (24689.1 ops/sec)
Did 182240 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 25006918us (7287.6 ops/sec)
Most of the performance win appears to be from the assembly operations
and not the addition chain. I have a CL to graft the addition chain onto
the C implementation, but it did not show measurable improvement in
ECDSA verify. ECDSA sign gets 2-4% faster, but we're more concerned
about ECDSA verify in the OPENSSL_SMALL builds.
Change-Id: Ide166f98b146c025f7f80ed7906336c16818540a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27593
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
This introduces a hook for the OpenSSL assembly.
Change-Id: I35e0588f0ed5bed375b12f738d16c9f46ceedeea
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27592
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
Largely random data, but make it easy to add things in the future.
Change-Id: I30bee790bd9671b4d0327c2244fe5cd1a8954f90
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27591
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
