Primality testing checks for small words in random places.
Median of 29 RSA keygens: 0m0.811s -> 0m0.521s
(Accuracy beyond 0.1s is questionable, and this "speed up" is certainly
noise.)
Bug: 238
Change-Id: Ie5efab7291302a42ac6e283d25da0c094d8577e7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25885
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is a bit easier to read than BN_less_than_consttime when we must do
>= or <=, about as much work to compute, and lots of code calls BN_cmp
on secret data. This also, by extension, makes BN_cmp_word
constant-time.
BN_equal_consttime is probably a little more efficient and is perfectly
readable, so leave that one around.
Change-Id: Id2e07fe312f01cb6fd10a1306dcbf6397990cf13
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25444
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 follows similar lines as the previous cleanups and fixes the
documentation of the preconditions.
And with that, RSA private key operations, provided p and q have the
same bit length, should be constant time, as far as I know. (Though I'm
sure I've missed something.)
bn_cmp_part_words and bn_cmp_words are no longer used and deleted.
Bug: 234
Change-Id: Iceefa39f57e466c214794c69b335c4d2c81f5577
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25404
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>
This is actually a bit more complicated (the mismatching widths cases
will never actually happen in RSA), but it's easier to think about and
removes more width-sensitive logic.
Bug: 232
Change-Id: I85fe6e706be1f7d14ffaf587958e930f47f85b3c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25246
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Thanks to Andres Erbsen for extremely helpful suggestions on how finally
plug this long-standing hole!
OpenSSL BIGNUMs are currently minimal-width, which means they cannot be
constant-time. We'll need to either excise BIGNUM from RSA and EC or
somehow fix BIGNUM. EC_SCALAR and later EC_FELEM work will excise it
from EC, but RSA's BIGNUMs are more transparent. Teaching BIGNUM to
handle non-minimal word widths is probably simpler.
The main constraint is BIGNUM's large "calculator" API surface. One
could, in theory, do arbitrary math on RSA components, which means all
public functions must tolerate non-minimal inputs. This is also useful
for EC; https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/24445 is
silly.
As a first step, fix comparison-type functions that were assuming
minimal BIGNUMs. I've also added bn_resize_words, but it is testing-only
until the rest of the library is fixed.
bn->top is now a loose upper bound we carry around. It does not affect
numerical results, only performance and secrecy. This is a departure
from the original meaning, and compiler help in auditing everything is
nice, so the final change in this series will rename bn->top to
bn->width. Thus these new functions are named per "width", not "top".
Looking further ahead, how are output BIGNUM widths determined? There's
three notions of correctness here:
1. Do I compute the right answer for all widths?
2. Do I handle secret data in constant time?
3. Does my memory usage not balloon absurdly?
For (1), a BIGNUM function must give the same answer for all input
widths. BN_mod_add_quick may assume |a| < |m|, but |a| may still be
wider than |m| by way of leading zeres. The simplest approach is to
write code in a width-agnostic way and rely on functions to accept all
widths. Where functions need to look at bn->d, we'll a few helper
functions to smooth over funny widths.
For (2), (1) is little cumbersome. Consider constant-time modular
addition. A sane type system would guarantee input widths match. But C
is weak here, and bifurcating the internals is a lot of work. Thus, at
least for now, I do not propose we move RSA's internal computation out
of BIGNUM. (EC_SCALAR/EC_FELEM are valuable for EC because we get to
stack-allocate, curves were already specialized, and EC only has two
types with many operations on those types. None of these apply to RSA.
We've got numbers mod n, mod p, mod q, and their corresponding
exponents, each of which is used for basically one operation.)
Instead, constant-time BIGNUM functions will output non-minimal widths.
This is trivial for BN_bin2bn or modular arithmetic. But for BN_mul,
constant-time[*] would dictate r->top = a->top + b->top. A calculator
repeatedly multiplying by one would then run out of memory. Those we'll
split into a private BN_mul_fixed for crypto, leaving BN_mul for
calculators. BN_mul is just BN_mul_fixed followed by bn_correct_top.
[*] BN_mul is not constant-time for other reasons, but that will be
fixed separately.
Bug: 232
Change-Id: Ide2258ae8c09a9a41bb71d6777908d1c27917069
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25244
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This rewrites the internals with a "words" variant that can avoid
bn_correct_top. It still ultimately calls bn_correct_top as the calling
convention is sadly still BIGNUM, but we can lift that calling
convention out incrementally.
Performance seems to be comparable, if not faster.
Before:
Did 85000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 5030401us (16897.3 ops/sec)
Did 34278 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 5048029us (6790.4 ops/sec)
After:
Did 85000 ECDSA P-256 signing operations in 5021057us (16928.7 ops/sec)
Did 34086 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 5010416us (6803.0 ops/sec)
Change-Id: I1159746dfcc00726dc3f28396076a354556e6e7d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/23065
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
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>
