The documentation in md32_common.h is now (more) correct with respect
to the most important details of the layout of |HASH_CTX|. The
documentation explaining why sha512.c doesn't use md32_common.h is now
more accurate as well.
Before, the C implementations of HASH_BLOCK_DATA_ORDER took a pointer
to the |HASH_CTX| and the assembly language implementations tool a
pointer to the hash state |h| member of |HASH_CTX|. (This worked
because |h| is always the first member of |HASH_CTX|.) Now, the C
implementations take a pointer directly to |h| too.
The definitions of |MD4_CTX|, |MD5_CTX|, and |SHA1_CTX| were changed to
be consistent with |SHA256_CTX| and |SHA512_CTX| in storing the hash
state in an array. This will break source compatibility with any
external code that accesses the hash state directly, but will not
affect binary compatibility.
The second parameter of |HASH_BLOCK_DATA_ORDER| is now of type
|const uint8_t *|; previously it was |void *| and all implementations
had a |uint8_t *data| variable to access it as an array of bytes.
This change paves the way for future refactorings such as automatically
generating the |*_Init| functions and/or sharing one I-U-F
implementation across all digest algorithms.
Change-Id: I30513bb40b5f1d2c8932551d54073c35484b3f8b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6401
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The SHA-2 family has some exceptions, but they're all programmer errors
and should be documented as such. (Are the failure cases even
necessary?)
Change-Id: I00bd0a9450cff78d8caac479817fbd8d3de872b8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4953
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Use sized integer types rather than unsigned char/int/long. The latter
two are especially a mess as they're both used in lieu of uint32_t.
Sometimes the code just blindly uses unsigned long and sometimes it uses
unsigned int when an LP64 architecture would notice.
Change-Id: I4c5c6aaf82cfe9fe523435588d286726a7c43056
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4952
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is an initial cut at aarch64 support. I have only qemu to test it
however—hopefully hardware will be coming soon.
This also affects 32-bit ARM in that aarch64 chips can run 32-bit code
and we would like to be able to take advantage of the crypto operations
even in 32-bit mode. AES and GHASH should Just Work in this case: the
-armx.pl files can be built for either 32- or 64-bit mode based on the
flavour argument given to the Perl script.
SHA-1 and SHA-256 don't work like this however because they've never
support for multiple implementations, thus BoringSSL built for 32-bit
won't use the SHA instructions on an aarch64 chip.
No dedicated ChaCha20 or Poly1305 support yet.
Change-Id: Ib275bc4894a365c8ec7c42f4e91af6dba3bd686c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/2801
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Initial fork from f2d678e6e89b6508147086610e985d4e8416e867 (1.0.2 beta).
(This change contains substantial changes from the original and
effectively starts a new history.)
