Valgrind's checking of uninitialised memory behaves very much like a
check for constant-time code: branches and memory indexes based on
uninitialised memory trigger warnings. Therefore, if we can tell
Valgrind that some secret is “uninitialised”, it'll give us a warning if
we do something non-constant-time with it.
This was the idea behind https://github.com/agl/ctgrind. But tricks like
that are no longer needed because Valgrind now comes with support for
marking regions of memory as defined or not. Therefore we can use that
API to check constant-time code.
This CL defines |CONSTTIME_SECRET| and |CONSTTIME_DECLASSIFY|, which are
no-ops unless the code is built with
|BORINGSSL_CONSTANT_TIME_VALIDATION| defined, which it isn't by default.
So this CL is a no-op itself so far. But it does show that a couple of
bits of constant-time time are, in fact, constant-time—seemingly even
when compiled with optimisations, which is nice.
The annotations in the RSA code are a) probably not marking all the
secrets as secret, and b) triggers warnings that are a little
interesting:
The anti-glitch check calls |BN_mod_exp_mont| which checks that the
input is less than the modulus. Of course, it is because the input is
the RSA plaintext that we just decrypted, but the plaintext is supposed
to be secret and so branching based on its contents isn't allows by
Valgrind. The answer isn't totally clear, but I've run out of time on
this for now.
Change-Id: I1608ed0b22d201e97595fafe46127159e02d5b1b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/33504
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This often causes confusion since, for various silly reasons (intrinsic
ref-counting, FOO_METHOD, and RSA's cached Montgomery bits), the thread
safety of some functions don't match the usual const/non-const
distinction. Fix const-ness where easy and document it otherwise.
Change-Id: If2037a4874d7580cc79b18ee21f12ae0f47db7fd
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/31344
Reviewed-by: Ryan Sleevi <rsleevi@chromium.org>
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>
cryptography.io wants RSA_R_BLOCK_TYPE_IS_NOT_02, only used by the
ancient RSA_padding_check_SSLv23 function. Define it but never emit it.
Additionally, it's rather finicky about RSA_R_TOO_LARGE* errors. We
merged them in BoringSSL because having RSA_R_TOO_LARGE,
RSA_R_TOO_LARGE_FOR_MODULUS, and RSA_R_TOO_LARGE_FOR_KEY_SIZE is a
little silly. But since we don't expect well-behaved code to condition
on error codes anyway, perhaps that wasn't worth it. Split them back
up.
Looking through OpenSSL, there is a vague semantic difference:
RSA_R_DIGEST_TOO_BIG_FOR_RSA_KEY - Specifically emitted if a digest is
too big for PKCS#1 signing with this key.
RSA_R_DATA_TOO_LARGE_FOR_KEY_SIZE - You asked me to sign or encrypt a
digest/plaintext, but it's too big for this key.
RSA_R_DATA_TOO_LARGE_FOR_MODULUS - You gave me an RSA ciphertext or
signature and it is not fully reduced modulo N.
-OR-
The padding functions produced something that isn't reduced, but I
believe this is unreachable outside of RSA_NO_PADDING.
RSA_R_DATA_TOO_LARGE - Some low-level padding function was told to copy
a digest/plaintext into some buffer, but the buffer was too small. I
think this is basically unreachable.
-OR-
You asked me to verify a PSS signature, but I didn't need to bother
because the digest/salt parameters you picked were too big.
Update-Note: This depends on cl/196566462.
Change-Id: I2e539e075eff8bfcd52ccde365e975ebcee72567
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/28547
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>
We've got three versions of DATA_TOO_LARGE and two versions of
DATA_TOO_SMALL with no apparent distinction between them.
Change-Id: I18ca2cb71ffc31b04c8fd0be316c362da4d7daf9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/17529
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
