This often causes confusion since, for various silly reasons (intrinsic
ref-counting, FOO_METHOD, and RSA's cached Montgomery bits), the thread
safety of some functions don't match the usual const/non-const
distinction. Fix const-ness where easy and document it otherwise.
Change-Id: If2037a4874d7580cc79b18ee21f12ae0f47db7fd
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/31344
Reviewed-by: Ryan Sleevi <rsleevi@chromium.org>
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>
cryptography.io wants RSA_R_BLOCK_TYPE_IS_NOT_02, only used by the
ancient RSA_padding_check_SSLv23 function. Define it but never emit it.
Additionally, it's rather finicky about RSA_R_TOO_LARGE* errors. We
merged them in BoringSSL because having RSA_R_TOO_LARGE,
RSA_R_TOO_LARGE_FOR_MODULUS, and RSA_R_TOO_LARGE_FOR_KEY_SIZE is a
little silly. But since we don't expect well-behaved code to condition
on error codes anyway, perhaps that wasn't worth it. Split them back
up.
Looking through OpenSSL, there is a vague semantic difference:
RSA_R_DIGEST_TOO_BIG_FOR_RSA_KEY - Specifically emitted if a digest is
too big for PKCS#1 signing with this key.
RSA_R_DATA_TOO_LARGE_FOR_KEY_SIZE - You asked me to sign or encrypt a
digest/plaintext, but it's too big for this key.
RSA_R_DATA_TOO_LARGE_FOR_MODULUS - You gave me an RSA ciphertext or
signature and it is not fully reduced modulo N.
-OR-
The padding functions produced something that isn't reduced, but I
believe this is unreachable outside of RSA_NO_PADDING.
RSA_R_DATA_TOO_LARGE - Some low-level padding function was told to copy
a digest/plaintext into some buffer, but the buffer was too small. I
think this is basically unreachable.
-OR-
You asked me to verify a PSS signature, but I didn't need to bother
because the digest/salt parameters you picked were too big.
Update-Note: This depends on cl/196566462.
Change-Id: I2e539e075eff8bfcd52ccde365e975ebcee72567
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28547
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>
We've got three versions of DATA_TOO_LARGE and two versions of
DATA_TOO_SMALL with no apparent distinction between them.
Change-Id: I18ca2cb71ffc31b04c8fd0be316c362da4d7daf9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/17529
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>
