This makes it difficult to build against the NDK's toolchain file. The
problem is __clang__ just means Clang is the frontend and implies
nothing about which assembler. When using as, it is fine. When using
clang-as on Linux, one needs a clang-as from this year.
The only places where we case about clang's integrated assembler are iOS
(where perlasm strips out .arch anyway) and build environments like
Chromium which have a regularly-updated clang. Thus we can remove this
now.
Bug: 39
Update-Note: Holler if this breaks the build. If it doesn't break the
build, you can probably remove any BORINGSSL_CLANG_SUPPORTS_DOT_ARCH
or explicit -march armv8-a+crypto lines in your BoringSSL build.
Change-Id: I21ce54b14c659830520c2f1d51c7bd13e0980c68
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/24124
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>
CMake screwed up. See
f969f1a9ce.
It looks like CMake 3.10.1 is in the process of being released. While we
wait for them to put together that build, I'll just revert this real
quick. It's nice to keep them all at the same version, but we really
just needed a new one for Android.
Change-Id: I01b5a54b65df2194d7b84c825dfdcf0fb87fd06b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/24144
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>
The NDK toolchain file requires 3.6.0 or later. We were still using
3.5.0.
Change-Id: I216d33bed4187c7e62a2672eb4f92ce815b60b1c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/24104
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
third_party/fiat/p256.c is weird. We need to switch everything to
sources.cmake.
Change-Id: I52e56e87a1ac5534b88a372ad68a1052fb019b67
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/24084
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
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>
Change-Id: Ic79f189c0bb2abf5d87f59ee410cafb4fb116ab8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/24004
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
The fiat-crypto-generated code uses the Montgomery form implementation
strategy, for both 32-bit and 64-bit code.
64-bit throughput seems slower, but the difference is smaller than noise between repetitions (-2%?)
32-bit throughput has decreased significantly for ECDH (-40%). I am
attributing this to the change from varibale-time scalar multiplication
to constant-time scalar multiplication. Due to the same bottleneck,
ECDSA verification still uses the old code (otherwise there would have
been a 60% throughput decrease). On the other hand, ECDSA signing
throughput has increased slightly (+10%), perhaps due to the use of a
precomputed table of multiples of the base point.
64-bit benchmarks (Google Cloud Haswell):
with this change:
Did 9126 ECDH P-256 operations in 1009572us (9039.5 ops/sec)
Did 23000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1039832us (22119.0 ops/sec)
Did 8820 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 1024242us (8611.2 ops/sec)
master (40e8c921ca):
Did 9340 ECDH P-256 operations in 1017975us (9175.1 ops/sec)
Did 23000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1039820us (22119.2 ops/sec)
Did 8688 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 1021108us (8508.4 ops/sec)
benchmarks on ARMv7 (LG Nexus 4):
with this change:
Did 150 ECDH P-256 operations in 1029726us (145.7 ops/sec)
Did 506 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1065192us (475.0 ops/sec)
Did 363 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 1033298us (351.3 ops/sec)
master (2fce1beda0):
Did 245 ECDH P-256 operations in 1017518us (240.8 ops/sec)
Did 473 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1086281us (435.4 ops/sec)
Did 360 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 1003846us (358.6 ops/sec)
64-bit tables converted as follows:
import re, sys, math
p = 2**256 - 2**224 + 2**192 + 2**96 - 1
R = 2**256
def convert(t):
x0, s1, x1, s2, x2, s3, x3 = t.groups()
v = int(x0, 0) + 2**64 * (int(x1, 0) + 2**64*(int(x2,0) + 2**64*(int(x3, 0)) ))
w = v*R%p
y0 = hex(w%(2**64))
y1 = hex((w>>64)%(2**64))
y2 = hex((w>>(2*64))%(2**64))
y3 = hex((w>>(3*64))%(2**64))
ww = int(y0, 0) + 2**64 * (int(y1, 0) + 2**64*(int(y2,0) + 2**64*(int(y3, 0)) ))
if ww != v*R%p:
print(x0,x1,x2,x3)
print(hex(v))
print(y0,y1,y2,y3)
print(hex(w))
print(hex(ww))
assert 0
return '{'+y0+s1+y1+s2+y2+s3+y3+'}'
fe_re = re.compile('{'+r'(\s*,\s*)'.join(r'(\d+|0x[abcdefABCDEF0123456789]+)' for i in range(4)) + '}')
print (re.sub(fe_re, convert, sys.stdin.read()).rstrip('\n'))
32-bit tables converted from 64-bit tables
Change-Id: I52d6e5504fcb6ca2e8b0ee13727f4500c80c1799
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23244
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>
It's misnamed but, more importantly, doesn't do anything because the
test client isn't sending early data to begin with. We really need to
make these tests less error-prone to write. With this fix, the test
actually notices if we remove the server-side 0-RTT check.
Also remove MaxEarlyDataSize from the other server tests which
erroneously set it. Any test with sets that was likely copy-and-pasted
incorrectly.
Change-Id: Idc24bc1590e0316946022341185285418ab8c77b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23944
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Along the way, this allows us to tidy up the invariants associated with
EC_SCALAR. They were fuzzy around ec_point_mul_scalar and some
computations starting from the digest in ECDSA. The latter I've put into
the type system with EC_LOOSE_SCALAR.
As for the former, Andres points out that particular EC implementations
are only good for scalars within a certain range, otherwise you may need
extra work to avoid the doubling case. To simplify curve
implementations, we reduce them fully rather than do the looser bit size
check, so they can have the stronger precondition to work with.
Change-Id: Iff9a0404f89adf8f7f914f8e8246c9f3136453f1
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23664
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>
The newer clang-cl is unhappy about the tautological comparison on
Windows, but the comparison itself is unnecessary anyway, since the
values will never exceed uint32_t.
I think the reason it's not firing elsewhere is because on other 64-bit
platforms, it is not tautological because long is 64-bit. On other
32-bit platforms, I'm not sure we actually have a standalone trunk clang
builder right now.
Update-Note: UTF8_getc and UTF8_putc were unexported. No one appears to
be calling them. (We're a crypto library, not a Unicode library.)
Change-Id: I0949ddea3131dca5f55d04e672c3ccf2915c41ab
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23844
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>
Credit to OSS-Fuzz for finding this.
CVE-2017-3738
(Imported from upstream's 5630661aecbea5fe3c4740f5fea744a1f07a6253 and
77d75993651b63e872244a3256e37967bb3c3e9e.)
Confirmed with Intel SDE that the fix makes the test vector pass and
that, without the fix, the test vector does not. (Well, we knew the
latter already, since it was our test vector.)
Change-Id: I167aa3407ddab3b434bacbd18e099c55aa40ac4c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23884
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We check that the private key is less than the order, but we forgot the
other end.
Update-Note: It's possible some caller was relying on this, but since
that function already checked the other half of the range, I'm
expecting this to be a no-op change.
Change-Id: I4a53357d7737735b3cfbe97d379c8ca4eca5d5ac
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23665
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>
This is a recent Clang warning, but it's far too aggressive. The earlier
unsigned long silliness was worth fixing, but it otherwise complains on
32-bit platforms with:
if (some_size_t > 0xffffffff) {
...
}
which is unreasonable as, on 64-bit platforms, this check is meaningful
and requiring the programmer add ifdefs is error-prone. This matches
Chromium in https://crbug.com/767059.
Bug: chromium:767059
Change-Id: I0bb0f3a4b60f222e9d1b3c569471fbcf5518caed
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23845
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>
The newer clang should hopefully fix the new linux_clang_cfi bot.
Note the VS2017 revision actually went backwards due to
db45606398
Change-Id: Icaca7a57596f063ccca490917d4b78813f2e9537
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23824
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We can probably do this globally at this point since the cipher
requirements are much more restrict than they were in the beginning.
(Firefox, in particular, has done so far a while.) For now add a flag
since some consumer wanted this.
I'll see about connecting it to a Chrome field trial after our breakage
budget is no longer reserved for TLS 1.3.
Change-Id: Ib61dd5aae2dfd48b56e79873a7f3061a7631a5f8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23725
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 fixes compilation on aarch64 and other architectures for Android.
Change-Id: I0b09ab06858c92d07e2376e244a4626a6af5037b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23764
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>
Change-Id: Id8b69bb6103dd938f4c6d0d2ec24f3d50ba5513c
Update-Note: fixes b/70034392
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23744
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Change-Id: I87edf7e1fee07da4bc93cc7ab524b79991a4206e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23724
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>
Rejecting values where we'd previous called BN_nnmod may have been
overly ambitious. In the long run, all the supported ECC APIs (ECDSA*,
ECDH_compute_key, and probably some additional new ECDH API) will be
using the EC_SCALAR version anyway, so this doesn't really matter.
Change-Id: I79cd4015f2d6daf213e4413caa2a497608976f93
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23584
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 66801feb17. This
turned out to break a lot more than expected. Hopefully we can reland it
soon, but we need to fix up some consumers first.
Note due to work that went in later, this is not a trivial revert and
should be re-reviewed.
Change-Id: I6474b67cce9a8aa03f722f37ad45914b76466bea
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23644
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>
We need it in both directions. Also I missed that in OBJ_obj2txt we
allowed uint64_t components, but in my new OBJ_txt2obj we only allowed
uint32_t. For consistency, upgrade that to uint64_t.
Bug: chromium:706445
Change-Id: I38cfeea8ff64b9acf7998e552727c6c3b2cc600f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23544
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Change-Id: Ic99a949258e62cad168c2c39507ca63100a8ffe5
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23264
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>
This is not a speedy operation, so the fuzzers need a bit of help to
avoid timeouts.
Bug: chromium:786049
Change-Id: Ib56281b63eb6c895057f21254f0cc7c5c2d85ee4
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23484
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
This throws me off every time.
Change-Id: I19848927fe821f7656dea0343361d70dae4007c9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23445
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
OBJ_txt2obj is currently implemented using BIGNUMs which is absurd. It
also depends on the giant OID table, which is undesirable. Write a new
one and expose the low-level function so Chromium can use it without the
OID table.
Bug: chromium:706445
Change-Id: I61ff750a914194f8776cb8d81ba5d3eb5eaa3c3d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23364
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Change-Id: I60dc085fa02c152adb12a505b453fe8f84670d8b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23464
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>
This avoids taking quadratic time to pretty-print certificates with
excessively large integer fields. Very large integers aren't any more
readable in decimal than hexadecimal anyway, and the i2s_* functions
will parse either form.
Found by libFuzzer.
Change-Id: Id586cd1b0eef8936d38ff50433ae7c819f0054f3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23424
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>
DECLARE_STACK_OF adds a trailing ; so we don't need a second one added
here.
Compiling a project using boringssl which uses -Werror,-Wextra-semi I
get errors:
```
third_party/boringssl/include/openssl/stack.h:374:1: error: extra ';' outside of a function [-Werror,-Wextra-semi]
DEFINE_STACK_OF(void)
^
third_party/boringssl/include/openssl/stack.h:355:3: note: expanded from macro 'DEFINE_STACK_OF'
BORINGSSL_DEFINE_STACK_OF_IMPL(type, type *, const type *) \
^
third_party/boringssl/include/openssl/stack.h:248:25: note: expanded from macro 'BORINGSSL_DEFINE_STACK_OF_IMPL'
DECLARE_STACK_OF(name); \
^
third_party/boringssl/include/openssl/stack.h:375:1: error: extra ';' outside of a function [-Werror,-Wextra-semi]
DEFINE_SPECIAL_STACK_OF(OPENSSL_STRING)
^
third_party/boringssl/include/openssl/stack.h:369:3: note: expanded from macro 'DEFINE_SPECIAL_STACK_OF'
BORINGSSL_DEFINE_STACK_OF_IMPL(type, type, const type)
^
third_party/boringssl/include/openssl/stack.h:248:25: note: expanded from macro 'BORINGSSL_DEFINE_STACK_OF_IMPL'
DECLARE_STACK_OF(name); \
^
2 errors generated.
```
Change-Id: Icc39e2341eb76544be72d2d7d0bd29e2f1ed0bf9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23404
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>
Matches the OpenSSL 1.1.0 spelling, which is what we advertise in
OPENSSL_VERSION_NUMBER now. Otherwise third-party code which uses it
will, in the long term, need ifdefs. Note this will require updates to
any existing callers (there appear to only be a couple of them), but it
should be straightforward.
Change-Id: I9dd1013609abca547152728a293529055dacc239
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23325
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is only a hair faster than the signing change, but still something.
I kept the call to BN_mod_inverse_odd as that appears to be faster
(constant time is not a concern for verification).
Before:
Did 22855 ECDSA P-224 verify operations in 3015099us (7580.2 ops/sec)
Did 21276 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 3083284us (6900.4 ops/sec)
Did 2635 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 3032582us (868.9 ops/sec)
Did 1240 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 3068631us (404.1 ops/sec)
After:
Did 23310 ECDSA P-224 verify operations in 3056226us (7627.1 ops/sec)
Did 21210 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 3035765us (6986.7 ops/sec)
Did 2666 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 3023592us (881.7 ops/sec)
Did 1209 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 3054040us (395.9 ops/sec)
Change-Id: Iec995b1a959dbc83049d0f05bdc525c14a95c28e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23077
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Hasse's theorem implies at most one subtraction is necessary. This is
still using BIGNUM for now because field elements
(EC_POINT_get_affine_coordinates_GFp) are BIGNUMs.
This gives an additional 2% speedup for signing.
Before:
Did 16000 ECDSA P-224 signing operations in 1064799us (15026.3 ops/sec)
Did 19000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1007839us (18852.2 ops/sec)
Did 1078 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 1079413us (998.7 ops/sec)
Did 484 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 1083616us (446.7 ops/sec)
After:
Did 16000 ECDSA P-224 signing operations in 1054918us (15167.1 ops/sec)
Did 20000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1037338us (19280.1 ops/sec)
Did 1045 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 1049073us (996.1 ops/sec)
Did 484 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 1085492us (445.9 ops/sec)
Change-Id: I2bfe214f968eca7a8e317928c0f3daf1a14bca90
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23076
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
None of the asymmetric crypto we inherented from OpenSSL is
constant-time because of BIGNUM. BIGNUM chops leading zeros off the
front of everything, so we end up leaking information about the first
word, in theory. BIGNUM functions additionally tend to take the full
range of inputs and then call into BN_nnmod at various points.
All our secret values should be acted on in constant-time, but k in
ECDSA is a particularly sensitive value. So, ecdsa_sign_setup, in an
attempt to mitigate the BIGNUM leaks, would add a couple copies of the
order.
This does not work at all. k is used to compute two values: k^-1 and kG.
The first operation when computing k^-1 is to call BN_nnmod if k is out
of range. The entry point to our tuned constant-time curve
implementations is to call BN_nnmod if the scalar has too many bits,
which this causes. The result is both corrections are immediately undone
but cause us to do more variable-time work in the meantime.
Replace all these computations around k with the word-based functions
added in the various preceding CLs. In doing so, replace the BN_mod_mul
calls (which internally call BN_nnmod) with Montgomery reduction. We can
avoid taking k^-1 out of Montgomery form, which combines nicely with
Brian Smith's trick in 3426d10119. Along
the way, we avoid some unnecessary mallocs.
BIGNUM still affects the private key itself, as well as the EC_POINTs.
But this should hopefully be much better now. Also it's 10% faster:
Before:
Did 15000 ECDSA P-224 signing operations in 1069117us (14030.3 ops/sec)
Did 18000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1053908us (17079.3 ops/sec)
Did 1078 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 1087853us (990.9 ops/sec)
Did 473 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 1069835us (442.1 ops/sec)
After:
Did 16000 ECDSA P-224 signing operations in 1064799us (15026.3 ops/sec)
Did 19000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 1007839us (18852.2 ops/sec)
Did 1078 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 1079413us (998.7 ops/sec)
Did 484 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 1083616us (446.7 ops/sec)
Change-Id: I2a25e90fc99dac13c0616d0ea45e125a4bd8cca1
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23075
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Imported from upstream's a78324d95bd4568ce2c3b34bfa1d6f14cddf92ef. I
think the "regression" part of that change is some tweak to BN_usub and
I guess the bn_*_words was to compensate for it, but we may as well
import it. Apparently the loop instruction is terrible.
Before:
Did 39871000 bn_add_words operations in 1000002us (39870920.3 ops/sec)
Did 38621750 bn_sub_words operations in 1000001us (38621711.4 ops/sec)
After:
Did 64012000 bn_add_words operations in 1000007us (64011551.9 ops/sec)
Did 81792250 bn_sub_words operations in 1000002us (81792086.4 ops/sec)
loop sets no flags (even doing the comparison to zero without ZF) while
dec sets all flags but CF, so Andres and I are assuming that because
this prevents Intel from microcoding it to dec/jnz, they otherwise can't
be bothered to add more circuitry since every compiler has internalized
by now to never use loop.
Change-Id: I3927cd1c7b707841bbe9963e3d4afd7ba9bd9b36
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23344
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
These allow precomputation of k, but bypass our nonce hardening and also
make it harder to excise BIGNUM. As a bonus, ECDSATest.SignTestVectors
is now actually covering the k^-1 and r computations.
Change-Id: I4c71dae162874a88a182387ac43999be9559ddd7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23074
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
wpa_supplicant appear to be using these.
Change-Id: I1f220cae69162901bcd9452e8daf67379c5e276c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23324
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
After much procrastinating, we finally moved Chromium to the new stuff.
We can now delete this. This is a breaking change for
SSL_PRIVATE_KEY_METHOD consumers, but it should be trivial (remove some
unused fields in the struct). I've bumped BORINGSSL_API_VERSION to ease
any multi-sided changes that may be needed.
Change-Id: I9fe562590ad938bcb4fcf9af0fadeff1d48745fb
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23224
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
