Depending on architecture, perlasm differed on which one or both of:
perl foo.pl flavor output.S
perl foo.pl flavor > output.S
Upstream has now unified on the first form after making a number of
changes to their files (the second does not even work for their x86
files anymore). Sync those portions of our perlasm scripts with upstream
and update CMakeLists.txt and generate_build_files.py per the new
convention.
This imports various commits like this one:
184bc45f683c76531d7e065b6553ca9086564576 (this was done by taking a
diff, so I don't have the full list)
Confirmed that generate_build_files.py sees no change.
BUG=14
Change-Id: Id2fb5b8bc2a7369d077221b5df9a6947d41f50d2
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8518
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
There was some uncertainty about what the code is doing with |$end0|
and whether it was necessary for |$len| to be a multiple of 16 or 96.
Hopefully these added comments make it clear that the code is correct
except for the caveat regarding low memory addresses.
Change-Id: Iea546a59dc7aeb400f50ac5d2d7b9cb88ace9027
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/7194
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This change makes the AEAD and EVP code paths use the same code for
AES-GCM. When AVX instructions are enabled in the assembly this will
allow them to use the stitched AES-GCM implementation.
Note that the stitched implementations are no-ops for small inputs
(smaller than 288 bytes for encryption; smaller than 96 bytes for
decryption). This means that only a handful of test cases with longish
inputs actually test the stitched code.
Change-Id: Iece8003d90448dcac9e0bde1f42ff102ebe1a1c9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/7173
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
See OpenSSL df057ea6c8a20e4babc047689507dfafde59ffd6.
Change-Id: Ife10dc13ca335cd51434d7769ff85c6929f10226
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/7172
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Since we pre-generate our perlasm, having the output of these files be
sensitive to the environment the run in is unhelpful. It would be bad to
suddenly change what features we do or don't compile in whenever workstations'
toolchains change or if developers do or don't have CC variables set.
Previously, all compiler-version-gated features were turned on in
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6260, but this broke the build. I
also wasn't thorough enough in gathering performance numbers. So, flip them all
to off instead. I'll enable them one-by-one as they're tested.
This should result in no change to generated assembly.
Change-Id: Ib4259b3f97adc4939cb0557c5580e8def120d5bc
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6383
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This reverts commit b9c26014de.
The win64 bot seems unhappy. Will sniff at it tomorrow. In
the meantime, get the tree green again.
Change-Id: I058ddb3ec549beee7eabb2f3f72feb0a4a5143b2
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6353
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
Since we pre-generate our perlasm, having the output of these files be
sensitive to the environment the run in is unhelpful. It would be bad to
suddenly change what features we do or don't compile in whenever workstations'
toolchains change.
Enable all compiler-version-gated features as they should all be runtime-gated
anyway. This should align with what upstream's files would have produced on
modern toolschains. We should assume our assemblers can take whatever we'd like
to throw at them. (If it turns out some can't, we'd rather find out and
probably switch the problematic instructions to explicit byte sequences.)
This actually results in a fairly significant change to the assembly we
generate. I'm guessing upstream's buildsystem sets the CC environment variable,
while ours doesn't and so the version checks were all coming out conservative.
diffstat of generated files:
linux-x86/crypto/sha/sha1-586.S | 1176 ++++++++++++
linux-x86/crypto/sha/sha256-586.S | 2248 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
linux-x86_64/crypto/bn/rsaz-avx2.S | 1644 +++++++++++++++++
linux-x86_64/crypto/bn/rsaz-x86_64.S | 638 ++++++
linux-x86_64/crypto/bn/x86_64-mont.S | 332 +++
linux-x86_64/crypto/bn/x86_64-mont5.S | 1130 ++++++++++++
linux-x86_64/crypto/modes/aesni-gcm-x86_64.S | 754 ++++++++
linux-x86_64/crypto/modes/ghash-x86_64.S | 475 +++++
linux-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha1-x86_64.S | 1121 ++++++++++++
linux-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha256-x86_64.S | 1062 +++++++++++
linux-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha512-x86_64.S | 2241 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
mac-x86/crypto/sha/sha1-586.S | 1174 ++++++++++++
mac-x86/crypto/sha/sha256-586.S | 2248 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
mac-x86_64/crypto/bn/rsaz-avx2.S | 1637 +++++++++++++++++
mac-x86_64/crypto/bn/rsaz-x86_64.S | 638 ++++++
mac-x86_64/crypto/bn/x86_64-mont.S | 331 +++
mac-x86_64/crypto/bn/x86_64-mont5.S | 1130 ++++++++++++
mac-x86_64/crypto/modes/aesni-gcm-x86_64.S | 750 ++++++++
mac-x86_64/crypto/modes/ghash-x86_64.S | 475 +++++
mac-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha1-x86_64.S | 1121 ++++++++++++
mac-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha256-x86_64.S | 1062 +++++++++++
mac-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha512-x86_64.S | 2241 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
win-x86/crypto/sha/sha1-586.asm | 1173 ++++++++++++
win-x86/crypto/sha/sha256-586.asm | 2248 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
win-x86_64/crypto/bn/rsaz-avx2.asm | 1858 +++++++++++++++++++-
win-x86_64/crypto/bn/rsaz-x86_64.asm | 638 ++++++
win-x86_64/crypto/bn/x86_64-mont.asm | 352 +++
win-x86_64/crypto/bn/x86_64-mont5.asm | 1184 ++++++++++++
win-x86_64/crypto/modes/aesni-gcm-x86_64.asm | 933 ++++++++++
win-x86_64/crypto/modes/ghash-x86_64.asm | 515 +++++
win-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha1-x86_64.asm | 1152 ++++++++++++
win-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha256-x86_64.asm | 1088 +++++++++++
win-x86_64/crypto/sha/sha512-x86_64.asm | 2499 ++++++
SHA* gets faster. RSA and AES-GCM seem to be more of a wash and even slower
sometimes! This is a little concerning. Though when I repeated the latter two,
it's definitely noisy (RSA in particular), so we may wish to repeat in a more
controlled environment. We could also flip some of these toggles to something
other than the highest setting if it seems some of the variants aren't
desirable. We just shouldn't have them enabled or disabled on accident. This
aligns us closer to upstream though.
$ /tmp/bssl.old speed SHA-
Did 5028000 SHA-1 (16 bytes) operations in 1000048us (5027758.7 ops/sec): 80.4 MB/s
Did 1708000 SHA-1 (256 bytes) operations in 1000257us (1707561.2 ops/sec): 437.1 MB/s
Did 73000 SHA-1 (8192 bytes) operations in 1008406us (72391.5 ops/sec): 593.0 MB/s
Did 3041000 SHA-256 (16 bytes) operations in 1000311us (3040054.5 ops/sec): 48.6 MB/s
Did 779000 SHA-256 (256 bytes) operations in 1000820us (778361.7 ops/sec): 199.3 MB/s
Did 26000 SHA-256 (8192 bytes) operations in 1009875us (25745.8 ops/sec): 210.9 MB/s
Did 1837000 SHA-512 (16 bytes) operations in 1000251us (1836539.0 ops/sec): 29.4 MB/s
Did 803000 SHA-512 (256 bytes) operations in 1000969us (802222.6 ops/sec): 205.4 MB/s
Did 41000 SHA-512 (8192 bytes) operations in 1016768us (40323.8 ops/sec): 330.3 MB/s
$ /tmp/bssl.new speed SHA-
Did 5354000 SHA-1 (16 bytes) operations in 1000104us (5353443.2 ops/sec): 85.7 MB/s
Did 1779000 SHA-1 (256 bytes) operations in 1000121us (1778784.8 ops/sec): 455.4 MB/s
Did 87000 SHA-1 (8192 bytes) operations in 1012641us (85914.0 ops/sec): 703.8 MB/s
Did 3517000 SHA-256 (16 bytes) operations in 1000114us (3516599.1 ops/sec): 56.3 MB/s
Did 935000 SHA-256 (256 bytes) operations in 1000096us (934910.2 ops/sec): 239.3 MB/s
Did 38000 SHA-256 (8192 bytes) operations in 1004476us (37830.7 ops/sec): 309.9 MB/s
Did 2930000 SHA-512 (16 bytes) operations in 1000259us (2929241.3 ops/sec): 46.9 MB/s
Did 1008000 SHA-512 (256 bytes) operations in 1000509us (1007487.2 ops/sec): 257.9 MB/s
Did 45000 SHA-512 (8192 bytes) operations in 1000593us (44973.3 ops/sec): 368.4 MB/s
$ /tmp/bssl.old speed RSA
Did 820 RSA 2048 signing operations in 1017008us (806.3 ops/sec)
Did 27000 RSA 2048 verify operations in 1015400us (26590.5 ops/sec)
Did 1292 RSA 2048 (3 prime, e=3) signing operations in 1008185us (1281.5 ops/sec)
Did 65000 RSA 2048 (3 prime, e=3) verify operations in 1011388us (64268.1 ops/sec)
Did 120 RSA 4096 signing operations in 1061027us (113.1 ops/sec)
Did 8208 RSA 4096 verify operations in 1002717us (8185.8 ops/sec)
$ /tmp/bssl.new speed RSA
Did 760 RSA 2048 signing operations in 1003351us (757.5 ops/sec)
Did 25900 RSA 2048 verify operations in 1028931us (25171.8 ops/sec)
Did 1320 RSA 2048 (3 prime, e=3) signing operations in 1040806us (1268.2 ops/sec)
Did 63000 RSA 2048 (3 prime, e=3) verify operations in 1016042us (62005.3 ops/sec)
Did 104 RSA 4096 signing operations in 1008718us (103.1 ops/sec)
Did 6875 RSA 4096 verify operations in 1093441us (6287.5 ops/sec)
$ /tmp/bssl.old speed GCM
Did 5316000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000082us (5315564.1 ops/sec): 85.0 MB/s
Did 712000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1000252us (711820.6 ops/sec): 961.0 MB/s
Did 149000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1003182us (148527.4 ops/sec): 1216.7 MB/s
Did 5919750 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000016us (5919655.3 ops/sec): 94.7 MB/s
Did 800000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1000951us (799239.9 ops/sec): 1079.0 MB/s
Did 152000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1000765us (151883.8 ops/sec): 1244.2 MB/s
$ /tmp/bssl.new speed GCM
Did 5315000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000125us (5314335.7 ops/sec): 85.0 MB/s
Did 755000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1000878us (754337.7 ops/sec): 1018.4 MB/s
Did 151000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1005655us (150150.9 ops/sec): 1230.0 MB/s
Did 5913500 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000041us (5913257.6 ops/sec): 94.6 MB/s
Did 782000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1001484us (780841.2 ops/sec): 1054.1 MB/s
Did 121000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1006389us (120231.8 ops/sec): 984.9 MB/s
Change-Id: I0efb32f896c597abc7d7e55c31d038528a5c72a1
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6260
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
This reverts the non-ARM portions of 97999919bb.
x86_64 perlasm already makes .globl imply .hidden. (Confusingly, ARM does not.)
Since we don't need it, revert those to minimize divergence with upstream.
Change-Id: I2d205cfb1183e65d4f18a62bde187d206b1a96de
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3610
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We are leaking asm symbols in Android builds because the asm code isn't
affected by -fvisibility=hidden. This change hides all asm symbols.
This assumes that no asm symbols are public API and that should be true.
Some points to note:
In crypto/rc4/asm/rc4-md5-x86_64.pl there are |RC4_set_key| and
|RC4_options| functions which aren't getting marked as hidden. That's
because those functions aren't actually ever generated. (I'm just trying
to minimise drift with upstream here.)
In crypto/rc4/asm/rc4-x86_64.pl there's |RC4_options| which is "public"
API, except that we've never had it in the header files. So I've just
deleted it. Since we have an internal caller, we'll probably have to put
it back in the future, but it can just be done in rc4.c to save
problems.
BUG=448386
Change-Id: I3846617a0e3d73ec9e5ec3638a53364adbbc6260
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3520
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(Imported from upstream's b3d7294976c58e0e05d0ee44a0e7c9c3b8515e05.)
May as well avoid diverging.
Change-Id: I3edec4fe15b492dd3bfb3146a8944acc6575f861
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/3020
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(Imported from upstream's 912f08dd5ed4f68fb275f3b2db828349fcffba14,
52f856526c46ee80ef4c8c37844f084423a3eff7 and
377551b9c4e12aa7846f4d80cf3604f2e396c964)
Change-Id: Ic2bf93371f6d246818729810e7a45b3f0021845a
Initial fork from f2d678e6e89b6508147086610e985d4e8416e867 (1.0.2 beta).
(This change contains substantial changes from the original and
effectively starts a new history.)
