This isn't something we need to fix, just an explanatory comment.
Change-Id: I284e6580d176f981c6b161e9951f367fef1b1be6
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/14264
Reviewed-by: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Steven Valdez <svaldez@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Change-Id: If565a5fdfa0f314422aa26c2e8f869965ca08c1b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/12969
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <alangley@gmail.com>
Most C standard library functions are undefined if passed NULL, even
when the corresponding length is zero. This gives them (and, in turn,
all functions which call them) surprising behavior on empty arrays.
Some compilers will miscompile code due to this rule. See also
https://www.imperialviolet.org/2016/06/26/nonnull.html
Add OPENSSL_memcpy, etc., wrappers which avoid this problem.
BUG=23
Change-Id: I95f42b23e92945af0e681264fffaf578e7f8465e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/12928
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Fuzzer mode explores the handshake, but at the cost of losing coverage
on the record layer. Add a separate build flag and client/server
corpora for this mode.
Note this requires tweaks in consumers' fuzzer build definitions.
BUG=111
Change-Id: I1026dc7301645e165a761068a1daad6eedc9271e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/12108
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
If running the stack through a fuzzer, we would like execution to be
completely deterministic. This is gated on a
BORINGSSL_UNSAFE_FUZZER_MODE #ifdef.
For now, this just uses the zero ChaCha20 key and a global counter. As
needed, we can extend this to a thread-local counter and a separate
ChaCha20 stream and counter per input length.
Change-Id: Ic6c9d8a25e70d68e5dc6804e2c234faf48e51395
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/7286
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
