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>
It actually works fine. I just forgot one of the typedefs last time.
This gives a roughly 2x improvement on P-256 in clang-cl +
OPENSSL_SMALL, the configuration used by Chrome.
Before:
Did 1302 ECDH P-256 operations in 1015000us (1282.8 ops/sec)
Did 4250 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1047000us (4059.2 ops/sec)
Did 1750 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 1094000us (1599.6 ops/sec)
After:
Did 3250 ECDH P-256 operations in 1078000us (3014.8 ops/sec)
Did 8250 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1016000us (8120.1 ops/sec)
Did 3250 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 1063000us (3057.4 ops/sec)
(These were taken on a VM, so the measurements are extremely noisy, but
this sort of improvement is visible regardless.)
Alas, we do need a little extra bit of fiddling because division does
not work (crbug.com/787617).
Bug: chromium:787617
Update-Note: This removes the MSan uint128_t workaround which does not
appear to be necessary anymore.
Change-Id: I8361314608521e5bdaf0e7eeae7a02c33f55c69f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23984
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
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>
This reverts commit f6942f0d22.
Reason for revert: This doesn't actually work in clang-cl. I
forgot we didn't have the clang-cl try bots enabled! :-( I
believe __asm__ is still okay, but I'll try it by hand
tomorrow.
Original change's description:
> Use uint128_t and __asm__ in clang-cl.
>
> clang-cl does not define __GNUC__ but is still a functioning clang. We
> should be able to use our uint128_t and __asm__ code in it on Windows.
>
> Change-Id: I67310ee68baa0c0c947b2441c265b019ef12af7e
> Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22184
> 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>
TBR=agl@google.com,davidben@google.com
Change-Id: I5c7e0391cd9c2e8cc0dfde37e174edaf5d17db22
No-Presubmit: true
No-Tree-Checks: true
No-Try: true
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22224
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>
clang-cl does not define __GNUC__ but is still a functioning clang. We
should be able to use our uint128_t and __asm__ code in it on Windows.
Change-Id: I67310ee68baa0c0c947b2441c265b019ef12af7e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22184
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>
