There is a C implementation of gcm_ghash_4bit to pair with
gcm_gmult_4bit. It's even slightly faster per the numbers below (x86_64
OPENSSL_NO_ASM build), but, more importantly, we trim down the
combinatorial explosion of GCM implementations and free up complexity
budget for potentially using bsaes better in the future.
Old:
Did 2557000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000057us (2556854.3 ops/sec): 40.9 MB/s
Did 94000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1009613us (93105.0 ops/sec): 125.7 MB/s
Did 17000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1024768us (16589.1 ops/sec): 135.9 MB/s
Did 2511000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000196us (2510507.9 ops/sec): 40.2 MB/s
Did 84000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1000412us (83965.4 ops/sec): 113.4 MB/s
Did 15000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1046963us (14327.2 ops/sec): 117.4 MB/s
New:
Did 2739000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000322us (2738118.3 ops/sec): 43.8 MB/s
Did 100000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1008190us (99187.7 ops/sec): 133.9 MB/s
Did 17000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1006360us (16892.6 ops/sec): 138.4 MB/s
Did 2546000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000150us (2545618.2 ops/sec): 40.7 MB/s
Did 86000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1000970us (85916.7 ops/sec): 116.0 MB/s
Did 14850 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1023459us (14509.6 ops/sec): 118.9 MB/s
While I'm here, tighten up some of the functions and align the ctr32 and
non-ctr32 paths.
Bug: 256
Change-Id: Id4df699cefc8630dd5a350d44f927900340f5e60
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/34869
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We currently require clmul instructions for constant-time GHASH
on x86_64. Otherwise, it falls back to a variable-time 4-bit table
implementation. However, a significant proportion of clients lack these
instructions.
Inspired by vpaes, we can use pshufb and a slightly different order of
incorporating the bits to make a constant-time GHASH. This requires
SSSE3, which is very common. Benchmarking old machines we had on hand,
it appears to be a no-op on Sandy Bridge and a small slowdown for
Penryn.
Sandy Bridge (Intel Pentium CPU 987 @ 1.50GHz):
(Note: these numbers are before 16-byte-aligning the table. That was an
improvement on Penryn, so it's possible Sandy Bridge is now better.)
Before:
Did 4244750 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 4015000us (1057222.9 ops/sec): 16.9 MB/s
Did 442000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 4016000us (110059.8 ops/sec): 148.6 MB/s
Did 84000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 4015000us (20921.5 ops/sec): 171.4 MB/s
Did 3349250 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 4016000us (833976.6 ops/sec): 13.3 MB/s
Did 343500 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 4016000us (85532.9 ops/sec): 115.5 MB/s
Did 65250 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 4015000us (16251.6 ops/sec): 133.1 MB/s
After:
Did 4229250 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 4016000us (1053100.1 ops/sec): 16.8 MB/s [-0.4%]
Did 442250 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 4016000us (110122.0 ops/sec): 148.7 MB/s [+0.1%]
Did 83500 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 4015000us (20797.0 ops/sec): 170.4 MB/s [-0.6%]
Did 3286500 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 4016000us (818351.6 ops/sec): 13.1 MB/s [-1.9%]
Did 342750 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 4015000us (85367.4 ops/sec): 115.2 MB/s [-0.2%]
Did 65250 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 4016000us (16247.5 ops/sec): 133.1 MB/s [-0.0%]
Penryn (Intel Core 2 Duo CPU P8600 @ 2.40GHz):
Before:
Did 1179000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000139us (1178836.1 ops/sec): 18.9 MB/s
Did 97000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1006347us (96388.2 ops/sec): 130.1 MB/s
Did 18000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1028943us (17493.7 ops/sec): 143.3 MB/s
Did 977000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000197us (976807.6 ops/sec): 15.6 MB/s
Did 82000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1012434us (80992.9 ops/sec): 109.3 MB/s
Did 15000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1006528us (14902.7 ops/sec): 122.1 MB/s
After:
Did 1306000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000153us (1305800.2 ops/sec): 20.9 MB/s [+10.8%]
Did 94000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1009852us (93082.9 ops/sec): 125.7 MB/s [-3.4%]
Did 17000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1012096us (16796.8 ops/sec): 137.6 MB/s [-4.0%]
Did 1070000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000929us (1069006.9 ops/sec): 17.1 MB/s [+9.4%]
Did 79000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1002209us (78825.9 ops/sec): 106.4 MB/s [-2.7%]
Did 15000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1061489us (14131.1 ops/sec): 115.8 MB/s [-5.2%]
Change-Id: I1c3760a77af7bee4aee3745d1c648d9e34594afb
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/34267
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Change-Id: If28096e677104c6109e31e31a636fee82ef4ba11
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/34266
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This one is a little thorny. All the various block cipher modes
functions and callbacks take a void *key. This allows them to be used
with multiple kinds of block ciphers.
However, the implementations of those callbacks are the normal typed
functions, like AES_encrypt. Those take AES_KEY *key. While, at the ABI
level, this is perfectly fine, C considers this undefined behavior.
If we wish to preserve this genericness, we could either instantiate
multiple versions of these mode functions or create wrappers of
AES_encrypt, etc., that take void *key.
The former means more code and is tedious without C++ templates (maybe
someday...). The latter would not be difficult for a compiler to
optimize out. C mistakenly allowed comparing function pointers for
equality, which means a compiler cannot replace pointers to wrapper
functions with the real thing. (That said, the performance-sensitive
bits already act in chunks, e.g. ctr128_f, so the function call overhead
shouldn't matter.)
But our only 128-bit block cipher is AES anyway, so I just switched
things to use AES_KEY throughout. AES is doing fine, and hopefully we
would have the sense not to pair a hypothetical future block cipher with
so many modes!
Change-Id: Ied3e843f0e3042a439f09e655b29847ade9d4c7d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/32107
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
EVP_AEAD reused portions of EVP_CIPHER's GCM128_CONTEXT which contains both the
key and intermediate state for each operation. (The legacy OpenSSL EVP_CIPHER
API has no way to store just a key.) Split out a GCM128_KEY and store that
instead.
Change-Id: Ibc550084fa82963d3860346ed26f9cf170dceda5
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/32004
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
This was reverted a second time because it ended up always setting the
final argument to CRYPTO_gcm128_init to zero, which disabled some
acceleration of GCM on ≥Haswell. With this update, that argument will be
set to 1 if |aes_hw_*| functions are being used.
Probably this will need to be reverted too for some reason. I'm hoping
to fill the entire git short description with “Revert”.
Change-Id: Ib4a06f937d35d95affdc0b63f29f01c4a8c47d03
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28484
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Even without strict-aliasing, C does not allow casting pointers to types
that don't match their alignment. After this change, UBSan is happy with
our code at default settings but for the negative left shift language
bug.
Note: architectures without unaligned loads do not generate the same
code for memcpy and pointer casts. But even ARMv6 can perform unaligned
loads and stores (ARMv5 couldn't), so we should be okay here.
Before:
Did 11086000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 5000391us (2217026.6 ops/sec): 35.5 MB/s
Did 370000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 5005208us (73923.0 ops/sec): 99.8 MB/s
Did 63000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 5029958us (12525.0 ops/sec): 102.6 MB/s
Did 9894000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 5000017us (1978793.3 ops/sec): 31.7 MB/s
Did 316000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 5005564us (63129.7 ops/sec): 85.2 MB/s
Did 54000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 5054156us (10684.3 ops/sec): 87.5 MB/s
After:
Did 11026000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 5000197us (2205113.1 ops/sec): 35.3 MB/s
Did 370000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 5005781us (73914.5 ops/sec): 99.8 MB/s
Did 63000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 5032695us (12518.1 ops/sec): 102.5 MB/s
Did 9831750 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 5000010us (1966346.1 ops/sec): 31.5 MB/s
Did 316000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 5005702us (63128.0 ops/sec): 85.2 MB/s
Did 54000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 5053642us (10685.4 ops/sec): 87.5 MB/s
(Tested with the no-asm builds; most of this code isn't reachable
otherwise.)
Change-Id: I025c365d26491abed0116b0de3b7612159e52297
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/22804
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>
This is less likely to make the compiler grumpy and generates the same
code. (Although this file has worse casts here which I'm still trying to
get the compiler to cooperate on.)
Change-Id: If7ac04c899d2cba2df34eac51d932a82d0c502d9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/16986
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
OPENSSL_ia32cap_addr avoids any relocations within the module, at the
cost of a runtime TEXTREL, which causes problems in some cases.
(Notably, if someone links us into a binary which uses the GCC "ifunc"
attribute, the loader crashes.)
Fix C references of OPENSSL_ia32cap_addr with a function. This is
analogous to the BSS getters. A follow-up commit will fix perlasm with a
different scheme which avoids calling into a function (clobbering
registers and complicating unwind directives.)
Change-Id: I09d6cda4cec35b693e16b5387611167da8c7a6de
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/15525
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
CRYPTO_gcm128_init is currently assuming that it gets passed in
aesni_encrypt whenever it selects the AVX implementation. This is true,
but we can easily avoid this assumption by adding an extra boolean
input.
Change-Id: Ie7888323f0c93ff9df8f1cf3ba784fb35bb07076
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/15370
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The changes to delocate.go are needed because modes/ does things like
return the address of a module function. Both of these need to be
changed from referencing the GOT to using local symbols.
Rather than testing whether |ghash| is |gcm_ghash_avx|, we can just keep
that information in a flag.
The test for |aesni_ctr32_encrypt_blocks| is more problematic, but I
believe that it's superfluous and can be dropped: if you passed in a
stream function that was semantically different from
|aesni_ctr32_encrypt_blocks| you would already have a bug because
|CRYPTO_gcm128_[en|de]crypt_ctr32| will handle a block at the end
themselves, and assume a big-endian, 32-bit counter anyway.
Change-Id: I68a84ebdab6c6006e11e9467e3362d7585461385
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/15064
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
