Amazingly, this function actually has (not crypto-related) callers, despite
being pretty much useless for cryptography.
BUG=31
Change-Id: I440827380995695c7a15bbf2220a05ffb28d9335
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8594
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
These were generated by running test_mod_exp_mont5 10 times. The values with
Montgomery representation 1 were generated separately so the test file could
preserve the comment. (Though, at 10,000 lines, no one's going to find it...)
BUG=31
Change-Id: I8e9d4d6d7b5f7d283bd259df10a1dbdc90b888cf
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8611
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Honestly, with this size of number, they're pretty bad test vectors.
test_mod_exp_mont5 will be imported in the next commit which should help.
This was done by taking test_mod_exp's generation, running it a few times
(since otherwise the modulus is always the same). I also ran it a few times
with the odd constraint removed since BN_mod_exp is supposed to support it,
even if it's not actually useful.
BUG=31
Change-Id: Id53953f0544123a5ea71efac534946055dd5aabc
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8610
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
That one needs reduced inputs and the other ought to be also tested against
unreduced ones is a bit annoying. But the previous commit made sure BN_nnmod
has tests, and test_mont could stand to inherit test_mod_mul's test data (it
only had five tests originally!), so I merged them.
BUG=31
Change-Id: I1eb585b14f85f0ea01ee81537a01e07ced9f5d9a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8608
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
These can all share one test type. Note test_div had a separate
division by zero test which had to be extracted.
BUG=31
Change-Id: I1de0220fba78cd7f82a5dc96adb34b79c07929e9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8527
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Two of these were even regression tests for a past bug. These are also
moved to the file, now with the amazing innovation that we *actually
check the regression test gave the right answer*.
BUG=31
Change-Id: I8097336ad39a2bb5c0af07dd8e1e34723b68d182
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8525
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This adds tests for:
for i = 0 to 199:
Sum: 2^i
A: 2^i - 1
B: 1
for i = 0 to 199:
Sum: 2^200
A: 2^200 - 2^i
B: 2^i
I don't believe any of the existing tests actually stressed this,
amazingly enough.
Change-Id: I5edab6327bad45fc21c62bd47f4169f8bb745ff7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8523
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This took some finesse. I merged the lshift1 and rshift1 test vectors as
one counted down and the other up. The rshift1 vectors were all rounded
to even numbers, with the test handling the odd case. Finally, each run
only tested positive or negative (it wasn't re-randomized), so I added
both positive and negative versions of each test vector.
BUG=31
Change-Id: Ic7de45ab797074547c44c2e4ff8089b1feec5d57
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8522
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Test vectors taken from one run of bc_test with the -bc flag, along with
a handful of manual test vectors around numbers close to zero. (The
output was compared against bc to make sure it was correct.)
BUG=31
Change-Id: I9e9263ece64a877c8497716cd4713b4c3e44248c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8521
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
