Functions that deserialize from bytes and Montgomery multiplication have
no reason to minimize their inputs.
Bug: 232
Change-Id: I121cc9b388033d684057b9df4ad0c08364849f58
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25258
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 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>
These empty states aren't any use to either caller or implementor.
Change-Id: If0b748afeeb79e4a1386182e61c5b5ecf838de62
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25254
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This cuts down on a duplicated place where we mess with bn->top. It also
also better abstracts away what determines the value of R.
(I ordered this wrong and rebasing will be annoying. Specifically, the
question is what happens if the modulus is non-minimal. In
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/25250/, R will
be determined by the stored width of mont->N, so we want to use mont's
copy of the modulus. Though, one way or another, the important part is
that it's inside the Montgomery abstraction.)
Bug: 232
Change-Id: I74212e094c8a47f396b87982039e49048a130916
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25247
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(See also https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5154.)
The exponent here is one of d, dmp1, or dmq1 for RSA. This value and its
bit length are both secret. The only public upper bound is the bit width
of the corresponding modulus (RSA n, p, and q, respectively).
Although BN_num_bits is constant-time (sort of; see bn_correct_top notes
in preceding patch), this does not fix the root problem, which is that
the windows are based on the minimal bit width, not the upper bound. We
could use BN_num_bits(m), but BN_mod_exp_mont_consttime is public API
and may be called with larger exponents. Instead, use all top*BN_BITS2
bits in the BIGNUM. This is still sensitive to the long-standing
bn_correct_top leak, but we need to fix that regardless.
This may cause us to do a handful of extra multiplications for RSA keys
which are just above a whole number of words, but that is not a standard
RSA key size.
Change-Id: I5e2f12b70c303b27c597a7e513b7bf7288f7b0e3
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25185
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>
These can be used to invert values in ECDSA. Unlike their BIGNUM
counterparts, the caller is responsible for taking values in and out of
Montgomery domain. This will save some work later on in the ECDSA
computation.
Change-Id: Ib7292900a0fdeedce6cb3e9a9123c94863659043
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23071
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This was primarily for my own understanding, but this should hopefully
also be clearer and more amenable to using unsigned indices later.
Change-Id: I09cc3d55de0f7d9284d3b3168d8b0446274b2ab7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22889
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
It always returns one, so just void it.
Change-Id: I8733cc3d6b20185e782cf0291e9c0dc57712bb63
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22564
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
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 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>
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>
This isn't all of our pointer games by far, but for any code which
doesn't run on armv6, memcpy and pointer cast compile to the same code.
For code with does care about armv6 (do we care?), it'll need a bit more
work. armv6 makes memcpy into a function call.
Ironically, the one platform where C needs its alignment rules is the
one platform that makes it hard to honor C's alignment rules.
Change-Id: Ib9775aa4d9df9381995df8698bd11eb260aac58c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/17707
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>
