cryptography.io depends on this. Specifically, it assumes that any time
a CBC-mode cipher is defined, CMAC is also defined. This is incorrect;
CMAC also requires an irreducible polynomial to represent GF(2^b).
However, one is indeed defined for 64-bit block ciphers such as 3DES.
Import tests from CAVP to test it. I've omitted the 65536-byte inputs
because they're huge and FileTest doesn't like lines that long.
Change-Id: I35b1e4975f61c757c70616f9b372b91746fc7e4a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28466
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
crypto/{asn1,x509,x509v3,pem} were skipped as they are still OpenSSL
style.
Change-Id: I3cd9a60e1cb483a981aca325041f3fbce294247c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/19504
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Most C standard library functions are undefined if passed NULL, even
when the corresponding length is zero. This gives them (and, in turn,
all functions which call them) surprising behavior on empty arrays.
Some compilers will miscompile code due to this rule. See also
https://www.imperialviolet.org/2016/06/26/nonnull.html
Add OPENSSL_memcpy, etc., wrappers which avoid this problem.
BUG=23
Change-Id: I95f42b23e92945af0e681264fffaf578e7f8465e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/12928
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The interface for this is very similar to upstream, but the code is
quite different.
Support for “resuming” (i.e. calling |CMAC_Final| and then computing the
CMAC for an extension of the message) has been dropped. Also, calling
|CMAC_Init| with magic argument to reset it has been replaced with
|CMAC_Reset|.
Lastly, a one-shot function has been added because it can save an
allocation and that's what most callers actually appear to want to do.
Change-Id: I9345220218bdb16ebe6ca356928d7c6f055d83f6
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4630
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
David Benjamin
Adam Langley