This has no behavior change, but it has a semantic one. This CL is an
assertion that all BIGNUM functions tolerate non-minimal BIGNUMs now.
Specifically:
- Functions that do not touch top/width are assumed to not care.
- Functions that do touch top/width will be changed by this CL. These
should be checked in review that they tolerate non-minimal BIGNUMs.
Subsequent CLs will start adjusting the widths that BIGNUM functions
output, to fix timing leaks.
Bug: 232
Change-Id: I3a2b41b071f2174452f8d3801bce5c78947bb8f7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25257
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>
Test this by re-running bn_tests.txt tests a lot. For the most part,
this was done by scattering bn_minimal_width or bn_correct_top calls as
needed. We'll incrementally tease apart the functions that need to act
on non-minimal BIGNUMs in constant-time.
BN_sqr was switched to call bn_correct_top at the end, rather than
sample bn_minimal_width, in anticipation of later splitting it into
BN_sqr (for calculators) and BN_sqr_fixed (for BN_mod_mul_montgomery).
BN_div_word also uses bn_correct_top because it calls BN_lshift so
officially shouldn't rely on BN_lshift returning something
minimal-width, though I expect we'd want to split off a BN_lshift_fixed
than change that anyway?
The shifts sample bn_minimal_width rather than bn_correct_top because
they all seem to try to be very clever around the bit width. If we need
constant-time versions of them, we can adjust them later.
Bug: 232
Change-Id: Ie17b39034a713542dbe906cf8954c0c5483c7db7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25255
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>
One less to worry about.
Bug: 232
Change-Id: Ib7d38e18fee02590088d76363e17f774cfefa59b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25252
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is an OpenSSL thing to support platforms where BN_ULONG is not
actually the size it claims to be. We define BN_ULONG to uint32_t and
uint64_t which are guaranteed by C to implement arithemetic modulo 2^32
and 2^64, respectively. Thus there is no need for any of this.
Change-Id: I098cd4cc050a136b9f2c091dfbc28dd83e01f531
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/21784
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
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>
