This works with basically no modifications.
Change-Id: I92f4d90f3c0ec8170d532cf7872754fadb36644d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27824
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: I55428636dbed0543dd772d74fe256f5d092e55fe
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27704
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is slower, but constant-time. It intentionally omits the signed
digit optimization because we cannot be sure the doubling case will be
unreachable for all curves. This is a fallback generic implementation
for curves which we must support for compatibility but which are not
common or important enough to justify curve-specific work.
Before:
Did 814 ECDH P-384 operations in 1085384us (750.0 ops/sec)
Did 1430 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 1081988us (1321.6 ops/sec)
Did 308 ECDH P-521 operations in 1057741us (291.2 ops/sec)
Did 539 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 1049797us (513.4 ops/sec)
After:
Did 715 ECDH P-384 operations in 1080161us (661.9 ops/sec)
Did 1188 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 1069567us (1110.7 ops/sec)
Did 275 ECDH P-521 operations in 1060503us (259.3 ops/sec)
Did 506 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 1084739us (466.5 ops/sec)
But we're still faster than the old BIGNUM implementation. EC_FELEM
more than paid for both the loss of points_make_affine and this CL.
Bug: 239
Change-Id: I65d71a731aad16b523928ee47618822d503ea704
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27708
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>
w=4 appears to be the correct answer for P-224 through P-521. There's
nominally some optimizations in here for 70- and 20-bit primes, but
that's absurd.
Change-Id: Id4ccec779b17e375e9258c1784e46d7d3651c59a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27707
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>
EC_POINT is split into the existing public EC_POINT (where the caller is
sanity-checked about group mismatches) and the low-level EC_RAW_POINT
(which, like EC_FELEM and EC_SCALAR, assume that is your problem and is
a plain old struct). Having both EC_POINT and EC_RAW_POINT is a little
silly, but we're going to want different type signatures for functions
which return void anyway (my plan is to lift a non-BIGNUM
get_affine_coordinates up through the ECDSA and ECDH code), so I think
it's fine.
This wasn't strictly necessary, but wnaf.c is a lot tidier now. Perf is
a wash; once we get up to this layer, it's only 8 entries in the table
so not particularly interesting.
Bug: 239
Change-Id: I8ace749393d359f42649a5bb0734597bb7c07a2e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27706
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>
Replace them with asserts and better justify why each of the internal
cases are not reachable. Also change the loop to count up to bits+1 so
it is obvious there is no memory error. (The previous loop shape made
more sense when ec_compute_wNAF would return a variable length
schedule.)
Change-Id: I9c7df6abac4290b7a3e545e3d4aa1462108e239e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27705
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>
Along the way, add some utility functions for getting common things
(curves, hashes, etc.) in the names Wycheproof uses.
Change-Id: I09c11ea2970cf2c8a11a8c2a861d85396efda125
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27786
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>
FileTest and Wycheproof express more-or-less the same things, so I've
just written a script to mechanically convert them. Saves writing a JSON
parser.
I've also left a TODO with other files that are worth converting. Per
Thai, the webcrypto variants of the files are just a different format
and will later be consolidated, so I've ignored those. The
curve/hash-specific ECDSA files and the combined one are intended to be
the same, so I've ignored the combined one. (Just by test counts, there
are some discrepancies, but Thai says he'll fix that and we can update
when that happens.)
Change-Id: I5fcbd5cb0e1bea32964b09fb469cb43410f53c2d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27785
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>
Chromium has some code which reaches into this field for memory
accounting.
This fixes a bug in doc.go where this line-wrapping confuses it. doc.go
needs a bit of a rewrite, but this is a bit better.
Change-Id: Ic9cc2c2fe9329d7bc366ccf91e0c9a92eae08ed2
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27764
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 is just a pristine copy of the JSON files for now. It's not hooked
up to anything yet.
Change-Id: I608b4b0368578f159cad23950d70578ff4c23da3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27784
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Change-Id: I156552df15de5941be99736cca694db4677e2b2a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27744
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>
Rather than expose a (potentially) assembly function directly, wrap it
in a C function to make visibility control easier.
Change-Id: I4a2dfeb8999ff021b2e10fbc54850eeadabbefff
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27724
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>
This introduces EC_FELEM, which is analogous to EC_SCALAR. It is used
for EC_POINT's representation in the generic EC_METHOD, as well as
random operations on tuned EC_METHODs that still are implemented
genericly.
Unlike EC_SCALAR, EC_FELEM's exact representation is awkwardly specific
to the EC_METHOD, analogous to how the old values were BIGNUMs but may
or may not have been in Montgomery form. This is kind of a nuisance, but
no more than before. (If p224-64.c were easily convertable to Montgomery
form, we could say |EC_FELEM| is always in Montgomery form. If we
exposed the internal add and double implementations in each of the
curves, we could give |EC_POINT| an |EC_METHOD|-specific representation
and |EC_FELEM| is purely a |EC_GFp_mont_method| type. I'll leave this
for later.)
The generic add and doubling formulas are aligned with the formulas
proved in fiat-crypto. Those only applied to a = -3, so I've proved a
generic one in https://github.com/mit-plv/fiat-crypto/pull/356, in case
someone uses a custom curve. The new formulas are verified,
constant-time, and swap a multiply for a square. As expressed in
fiat-crypto they do use more temporaries, but this seems to be fine with
stack-allocated EC_FELEMs. (We can try to help the compiler later,
but benchamrks below suggest this isn't necessary.)
Unlike BIGNUM, EC_FELEM can be stack-allocated. It also captures the
bounds in the type system and, in particular, that the width is correct,
which will make it easier to select a point in constant-time in the
future. (Indeed the old code did not always have the correct width. Its
point formula involved halving and implemented this in variable time and
variable width.)
Before:
Did 77274 ECDH P-256 operations in 10046087us (7692.0 ops/sec)
Did 5959 ECDH P-384 operations in 10031701us (594.0 ops/sec)
Did 10815 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 10087892us (1072.1 ops/sec)
Did 8976 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 10071038us (891.3 ops/sec)
Did 2600 ECDH P-521 operations in 10091688us (257.6 ops/sec)
Did 4590 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 10055195us (456.5 ops/sec)
Did 3811 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 10003574us (381.0 ops/sec)
After:
Did 77736 ECDH P-256 operations in 10029858us (7750.5 ops/sec) [+0.8%]
Did 7519 ECDH P-384 operations in 10068076us (746.8 ops/sec) [+25.7%]
Did 13335 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 10029962us (1329.5 ops/sec) [+24.0%]
Did 11021 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 10088600us (1092.4 ops/sec) [+22.6%]
Did 2912 ECDH P-521 operations in 10001325us (291.2 ops/sec) [+13.0%]
Did 5150 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 10027462us (513.6 ops/sec) [+12.5%]
Did 4264 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 10069694us (423.4 ops/sec) [+11.1%]
This more than pays for removing points_make_affine previously and even
speeds up ECDH P-256 slightly. (The point-on-curve check uses the
generic code.)
Next is to push the stack-allocating up to ec_wNAF_mul, followed by a
constant-time single-point multiplication.
Bug: 239
Change-Id: I44a2dff7c52522e491d0f8cffff64c4ab5cd353c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27668
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This does not appear to actually pull its weight. The purpose of this
logic is to switch some adds to the faster add_mixed in the wNAF code,
at the cost of a rather expensive inversion. This optimization kicks in
for generic curves, so P-384 and P-521:
With:
Did 32130 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 30077563us (1068.2 ops/sec)
Did 27456 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 30073086us (913.0 ops/sec)
Did 14122 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 30077407us (469.5 ops/sec)
Did 11973 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 30037330us (398.6 ops/sec)
Without:
Did 32445 ECDSA P-384 signing operations in 30069721us (1079.0 ops/sec)
Did 27056 ECDSA P-384 verify operations in 30032303us (900.9 ops/sec)
Did 13905 ECDSA P-521 signing operations in 30000430us (463.5 ops/sec)
Did 11433 ECDSA P-521 verify operations in 30021876us (380.8 ops/sec)
For single-point multiplication, the optimization is not useful. This
makes sense as we only have one table's worth of additions to convert
but still pay for the inversion. For double-point multiplication, it is
slightly useful for P-384 and very useful for P-521. However, the next
change to stack-allocate EC_FELEMs will more than compensate for
removing it. (The immediate goal here is to simplify the EC_FELEM
story.)
Additionally, that this optimization was not useful for single-point
multiplication implies that, should we wish to recover this, a modest
8-entry pre-computed (affine) base point table should have the same
effect or better.
Update-Note: I do not believe anything was calling either of these
functions. (If necessary, we can always add no-op stubs as whether a
point is affine is not visible to external code. It previously kicked in
some optimizations, but those were removed for constant-time needs
anyway.)
Bug: 239
Change-Id: Ic9c51b001c45595cfe592274c7d5d652f4234839
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27667
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
I don't think this lock is actually needed. If the process exited by the
time we call shim.Process.Kill(), then the test ultimately finished. If
not, wait() will return that the process died by a signal.
Change-Id: I668a86583aba16fd00e0cd05071acc13059a2c42
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27325
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(Imported from upstream's 753316232243ccbf86b96c1c51ffcb41651d9ad5.)
Just to sync up a bit further.
Change-Id: I805150d0f0c10d68648fae83603b0d46231ae4ec
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27685
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>
If the caller asked for the base to be treated as secret, we should
provide that. Allowing unbounded inputs is not compatible with being
constant-time.
Additionally, this aligns with the guidance here:
https://github.com/HACS-workshop/spectre-mitigations/blob/master/crypto_guidelines.md#1-do-not-conditionally-choose-between-constant-and-non-constant-time
Update-Note: BN_mod_exp_mont_consttime and BN_mod_exp_mont now require
inputs be fully reduced. I believe current callers tolerate this.
Additionally, due to a quirk of how certain operations were ordered,
using (publicly) zero exponent tolerated a NULL BN_CTX while other
exponents required non-NULL BN_CTX. Non-NULL BN_CTX is now required
uniformly. This is unlikely to cause problems. Any call site where the
exponent is always zero should just be replaced with BN_value_one().
Change-Id: I7c941953ea05f36dc2754facb9f4cf83a6789c61
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27665
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>
As the point may be the output of some private key operation, whether Z
accidentally hit one is secret.
Bug: 239
Change-Id: I7db34cd3b5dd5ca4b96980e8993a9b4eda49eb88
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27664
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
We have little-endian BIGNUM functions now.
Change-Id: Iffc46a14e75c6bba2e170b824b1a08c69d2e9d18
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27594
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
This is adapted from upstream's
eb7916960bf50f436593abe3d5f2e0592d291017.
This gives a 22% win for ECDSA signing. (Upstream cites 30-40%, but they
are unnecessarily using BN_mod_exp_mont_consttime in their generic path.
The exponent is public. I expect part of their 30-40% is just offsetting
this.)
Did 506000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 25044595us (20204.0 ops/sec)
Did 170506 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 25033567us (6811.1 ops/sec)
Did 618000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 25031294us (24689.1 ops/sec)
Did 182240 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 25006918us (7287.6 ops/sec)
Most of the performance win appears to be from the assembly operations
and not the addition chain. I have a CL to graft the addition chain onto
the C implementation, but it did not show measurable improvement in
ECDSA verify. ECDSA sign gets 2-4% faster, but we're more concerned
about ECDSA verify in the OPENSSL_SMALL builds.
Change-Id: Ide166f98b146c025f7f80ed7906336c16818540a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27593
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
This introduces a hook for the OpenSSL assembly.
Change-Id: I35e0588f0ed5bed375b12f738d16c9f46ceedeea
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27592
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
Largely random data, but make it easy to add things in the future.
Change-Id: I30bee790bd9671b4d0327c2244fe5cd1a8954f90
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27591
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
This imports the assembly portion of
eb7916960bf50f436593abe3d5f2e0592d291017 from upstream. Note the
OPENSSL_ia32cap_P bits were tweaked to be delocate-compatible. Those
should be reviewed against the original file.
Change-Id: I19eef722225bb7928275e3d93890f80aa2f8734d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27589
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
We were still using the allocating scalar inversion for ECDSA verify
because previously it seemed to be faster. It appears to have flipped
now, though probably was always just a wash.
While I'm here, save a multiplication by swapping the inversion and
Montgomery reduction.
Did 200000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 10025749us (19948.6 ops/sec)
Did 66234 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 10061123us (6583.2 ops/sec)
Did 202000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 10020846us (20158.0 ops/sec)
Did 68052 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 10020592us (6791.2 ops/sec)
The actual motivation is to get rid of the unchecked EC_SCALAR function
and align sign/verify in preparation for the assembly scalar ops.
Change-Id: I1bd3a5719a67966dc8edaa43535a3864b69f76d0
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27588
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
No sense in adding impossible error cases we need to handle.
Additionally, tighten them a bit and require strong bounds. (I wasn't
sure what we'd need at first and made them unnecessarily general.)
Change-Id: I21a0afde90a55be2e9a0b8d7288f595252844f5f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27586
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
This is so the *_small functions can assume somewhat more uniform
widths, to simplify their error-handling.
Change-Id: I0420cb237084b253e918c64b0c170a5dfd99ab40
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27584
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
After e325c3f471, this typo bites and
causes SSL_CTX_get_extra_chain_certs to return an empty stack.
Change-Id: I6aa7093d1ca4f3ba0f520a644b14de5b3a3ccaa6
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27604
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>
The FIPS 186-4 algorithm we use includes a limit which hits a 2^-20
failure probability, assuming my math is right. We've observed roughly
2^-23. This is a little large at scale. (See b/77854769.)
To avoid modifying the FIPS algorithm, retry the whole thing four times
to bring the failure rate down to 2^-80. Along the way, now that I have
the derivation on hand, adjust
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22584 to target the same
failure probability.
Along the way, fix an issue with RSA_generate_key where, if callers
don't check for failure, there may be half a key in there.
Change-Id: I0e1da98413ebd4ffa65fb74c67a58a0e0cd570ff
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27288
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>
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/10520 and then later
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25285 made BN_MONT_CTX_set
constant-time, which is necessary for RSA's mont_p and mont_q. However,
due to a typo in the benchmark, they did not correctly measure.
Split BN_MONT_CTX creation into a constant-time and variable-time one.
The constant-time one uses our current algorithm and the latter restores
the original BN_mod codepath.
Should we wish to avoid BN_mod, I have an alternate version lying
around:
First, BN_set_bit + bn_mod_lshift1_consttime as now to count up to 2*R.
Next, observe that 2*R = BN_to_montgomery(2) and R*R =
BN_to_montgomery(R) = BN_to_montgomery(2^r_bits) Also observe that
BN_mod_mul_montgomery only needs n0, not RR. Split the core of
BN_mod_exp_mont into its own function so the caller handles conversion.
Raise 2*R to the r_bits power to get 2^r_bits*R = R*R.
The advantage of that algorithm is that it is still constant-time, so we
only need one BN_MONT_CTX_new. Additionally, it avoids BN_mod which is
otherwise (almost, but the remaining links should be easy to cut) out of
the critical path for correctness. One less operation to worry about.
The disadvantage is that it is gives a 25% (RSA-2048) or 32% (RSA-4096)
slower RSA verification speed. I went with the BN_mod one for the time
being.
Before:
Did 9204 RSA 2048 signing operations in 10052053us (915.6 ops/sec)
Did 326000 RSA 2048 verify (same key) operations in 10028823us (32506.3 ops/sec)
Did 50830 RSA 2048 verify (fresh key) operations in 10033794us (5065.9 ops/sec)
Did 1269 RSA 4096 signing operations in 10019204us (126.7 ops/sec)
Did 88435 RSA 4096 verify (same key) operations in 10031129us (8816.1 ops/sec)
Did 14552 RSA 4096 verify (fresh key) operations in 10053411us (1447.5 ops/sec)
After:
Did 9150 RSA 2048 signing operations in 10022831us (912.9 ops/sec)
Did 322000 RSA 2048 verify (same key) operations in 10028604us (32108.2 ops/sec)
Did 289000 RSA 2048 verify (fresh key) operations in 10017205us (28850.4 ops/sec)
Did 1270 RSA 4096 signing operations in 10072950us (126.1 ops/sec)
Did 87480 RSA 4096 verify (same key) operations in 10036328us (8716.3 ops/sec)
Did 80730 RSA 4096 verify (fresh key) operations in 10073614us (8014.0 ops/sec)
Change-Id: Ie8916d1634ccf8513ceda458fa302f09f3e93c07
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27287
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 first non-zero window (which we can condition on for public
exponents) always multiplies by one. This means we can cut out one
Montgomery multiplication. It also means we never actually need to
initialize r to one, saving another Montgomery multiplication for P-521.
This, in turn, means we don't need the bn_one_to_montgomery optimization
for the public-exponent exponentations, so we can delete
bn_one_to_montgomery_small. (The function does currently promise to
handle p = 0, but this is not actually reachable, so it can just do a
reduction on RR.)
For RSA, where we're not doing many multiplications to begin with,
saving one is noticeable.
Before:
Did 92000 RSA 2048 verify (same key) operations in 3002557us (30640.6 ops/sec)
Did 25165 RSA 4096 verify (same key) operations in 3045046us (8264.2 ops/sec)
After:
Did 100000 RSA 2048 verify (same key) operations in 3002483us (33305.8 ops/sec)
Did 26603 RSA 4096 verify (same key) operations in 3010942us (8835.4 ops/sec)
(Not looking at the fresh key number yet as that still needs to be
fixed.)
Change-Id: I81a025a68d9b0f8eb0f9c6c04ec4eedf0995a345
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27286
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>
Change-Id: If3d93648cf6561c02c208895526ae1f1cbfa2b51
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27524
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>
Otherwise Clang has to assign a file entry to the label which conflicts with
later, explicit, file entries.
Change-Id: Ifc782821517aa7b48ba3ef304d4468f2bc850ac2
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27544
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>
This schism came up in passing again, and I realized we never added a
TLS-level test for this. Fix that.
Change-Id: I10f910bb5a975d6b3b73d99e7412ade35654fddb
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27224
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's defined to return one in Montgomery form, not a normal one.
(Not that this matters. This function is only used to Fermat's Little
Theorem. Probably it should have been less general, though we'd need to
make new test vectors first.)
Change-Id: Ia8d7588e6a413b25f01280af9aacef0192283771
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27285
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
BN_mod_exp_mont is intended to protect the base, but not the exponent.
Accordingly, it shouldn't treat a base of zero as special.
Change-Id: Ib053e8ce65ab1741973a9f9bfeff8c353567439c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27284
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Our technique to perform the reduction only works for balanced key
sizes. For unbalanced keys, we fall back to variable-time logic.
Instead, fall back earlier to the non-CRT codepath, which is still
secure, just slower. This also aligns with the advice here:
https://github.com/HACS-workshop/spectre-mitigations/blob/master/crypto_guidelines.md#1-do-not-conditionally-choose-between-constant-and-non-constant-time
Update-Note: This is a performance hit (some keys will run 3x slower),
but only for keys with different-sized primes. I believe the Windows
crypto APIs will not accept such keys at all. There are two scenarios to
be concerned with for RSA performance:
1. Performance of reasonably-generated keys. Keys that BoringSSL or
anyone else reasonable generates will all be balanced, so this change
does not affect them.
2. Worst-case performance for DoS purposes. This CL does not change the
worst-case performance for RSA at a given bit size. In fact, it improves
it slightly. A sufficiently unbalanced RSA key is as slow as not doing
CRT at all.
In both cases, this change does not affect performance. The affected
keys are pathologically-generated ones that were not quite pathological
enough.
Bug: 235
Change-Id: Ie298dabb549ab9108fa9374aa86ebffe8b6c6c88
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27504
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>
data_plus_mac_size is secret. Values derived from it cannot quite be
safely divided by md_block_size because SHA-384 ciphers prevent that
field from being constant. We know the value is a power of two, so do
the strength reduction by hand.
Change-Id: Id62ab9e646f4e21d507a7059cfe84d49bbb986e6
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27505
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>
This too is connection-level state to be reset on SSL_clear.
Change-Id: I071c9431c28a7d0ff3eb20c679784d4aa4c236a5
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27490
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>
Chrome uses the platform certificate verifier and thus cannot reliably
expect PSS signatures to work in all configurations. Add an API for the
consumer to inform BoringSSL of this ability. We will then adjust our
advertisements accordingly.
Note that, because TLS 1.2 does not have the signature_algorithms_cert
extension, turning off TLS 1.3 and using this API will stop advertising
RSA-PSS. I believe this is the correct behavior given the semantics of
that code point.
The tests check the various combinations here, as well as checking that
the peer never sends signature_algorithms_cert identical to
signature_algorithms.
Bug: 229
Change-Id: I8c33a93efdc9252097e3899425b49548fc42a93a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27488
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>
It's hard to diagnose "20".
Change-Id: I57e8d0fb6e4937ddeca45b3645463ca0dc872ea6
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27487
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>
