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>
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>
Since the format no longer is readable by bc, compare it to Go's math/big
instead.
Change-Id: I34d37aa0c29c6f4178267858cb0d3941b4266b93
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/8603
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
