Probably we'll want some simpler server-side API later. But, as things
stand, all consumers of these functions are #ifdef'd out and have to be
because the requisite OCSP_RESPONSE types are gone.
Change-Id: Ic82b2ab3feca14c56656da3ceb3651819e3eb377
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4551
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
It's unused, but for some old #ifdef branch in wpa_supplicant's EAP-FAST
hack, before SSL_set_session_ticket_ext_cb existed.
Change-Id: Ifc11fea2f6434354f756e04e5fc3ed5f1692025e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4550
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This avoids callers having to worry about |CRYPTO_add| and what the
correct lock to use it with is. (Esp since we'll probably change the way
that reference counts work in the future.)
Change-Id: I972bf0cc3be6099e0255e64a0fd50249062d1eb4
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4623
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
I think, long ago, I tried to use the monotonic clock in speed.cc, which
needs -lrt. However, the current code doesn't use that and thus doesn't
need -lrt.
Change-Id: Ibcbf90f91ae6b852c0975dff006346125243df54
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4622
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
BoringSSL always uses uncompressed points. This function aborts if
another form is requested or does nothing if uncompressed points are
requested.
Change-Id: I80bc01444cdf9c789c9c75312b5527bf4957361b
I think these two things were written at the same time and so the
AES-CTR-HMAC AEADs never explicitly set these values.
Change-Id: I0a142ad2b0fb9e893e290c1def5e5c6b193a3cc8
I tried so hard to get rid of AES-192, but it's called from too many
places. I suspect that those places don't actually use it, but it's
dangerous to assume that.
Change-Id: I6208b64a463e3539973532abd21882e0e4c55a1c
“ECDHE-PSK-WITH-AES-128-GCM-SHA256” doesn't follow the standard naming
for OpenSSL: it was “-WITH-” in it and has a hyphen between “AES” and
“128”. This change fixes that.
Change-Id: I7465b1ec83e7d5b9a60d8ca589808aeee10c174e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4601
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Previously I've been using the Linaro toolchains and just building
static binaries. However, the Linaro toolchains have a broken
pthread_rwlock_wrlock—it does nothing and then unlocking corrupts the
lock.
Building with the Android NDK avoids this.
These build instructions depend on
https://github.com/taka-no-me/android-cmake which people will need to
clone into util/ if they want to use the Android NDK.
Change-Id: Ic64919f9399af2a57e8df4fb4b3400865ddb2427
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4600
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
SSL_get0_chain_certs calls a ctrl function with
SSL_CTRL_GET_CHAIN_CERTS. The switch failed to set a positive return
value and so the call always appeared to fail.
Change-Id: If40ca7840197a9748fd69b761fd905f44bb79835
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4521
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Android uses BIO reference counting.
This reverts commit 9bde6aeb76.
Change-Id: Ibf4a7f42477549d10829a424ea3b52f09098666c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4472
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Clang (3.6, at least) doesn't like .arch when its internal as is used.
Instead, one has to pass -march=armv8-a+crypto on the command line.
Change-Id: Ifc5b57fbebd0eb53658481b0a0c111e808c81d93
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4411
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The immediate in this operation is too large for ARM. GCC will
automatically rewrite it to use bic (where bic does an AND NOT). Clang,
however doesn't, and reasonably throws an error.
This change switches to using bic in the source file, thus making both
happy.
Change-Id: I958fa29b88bffeab20c6ee11660736222a2e6986
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4410
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
These functions were #if 0'ed out in the code, which is a distraction.
Change-Id: I186196ab512565507476f9b56682bf59d003d85f
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4604
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This will be reverted in a minute. The bots should run both suites of tests and
report the names of all failing tests in the summary.
Change-Id: Ibe351017dfa8ccfd182b3c88eee413cd2cbdeaf0
Finish up crypto, minus the legacy modules we haven't been touching much.
Change-Id: I0e9e1999a627aed5fb14841f8a2a7d0b68398e85
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4517
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
First batch of the alphabet.
Change-Id: If4e60f4fbb69e04eb4b70aa1b2240e329251bfa5
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4514
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is consistent with C's free function and upstream's convention.
Change-Id: I83f6e2f5824e28f69a9916e580dc2d8cb3b94234
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4512
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
While *pval is usually a pointer in rare circumstances it can be a long
value. One some platforms (e.g. WIN64) where
sizeof(long) < sizeof(ASN1_VALUE *) this will write past the field.
*pval is initialised correctly in the rest of ASN1_item_ex_new so setting it
to NULL is unecessary anyway.
Thanks to Julien Kauffmann for reporting this issue.
(Imported from upstream's f617b4969a9261b9d7d381670aefbe2cf766a2cb.)
Change-Id: I8cc777f7ab126dcef3a0278a82d3fc91faf4c231
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4510
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
These are never used and no flags are defined anyway.
Change-Id: I206dc2838c5f68d87559a702dcb299b208cc7e1e
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4493
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This addresses
- request for improvement for faster key setup in RT#3576;
- clearing registers and stack in RT#3554 (this is more of a gesture to
see if there will be some traction from compiler side);
- more commentary around input parameters handling and stack layout
(desired when RT#3553 was reviewed);
- minor size and single block performance optimization (was lying around);
(Imported from upstream's 23f6eec71dbd472044db7dc854599f1de14a1f48)
This one is best reviewed by verifying that
23f6eec71dbd472044db7dc854599f1de14a1f48^ in upstream has the exact same
versions of these files (we had no local diffs), so we can just copy them
wholesale.
bssl speed reports a wash on my Mac. If I keep running it, different ones win
each time.
Change-Id: I729bd39cf0b3a30cc24de839e1c734dcaef972b8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4491
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
XTS bug spotted and fix suggested by Adrian Kotelba.
(Imported from upstream's e620e5ae37bc3fc5e457ebf3edcdd01b20f8c5dd.)
Another patch we missed.
Change-Id: Ibea40eeec01a49b29064b14631706756795c9592
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4489
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This facilitates "universal" builds, ones that target multiple
architectures, e.g. ARMv5 through ARMv7.
(Imported from upstream's c1669e1c205dc8e695fb0c10a655f434e758b9f7)
This is a change from a while ago which was a source of divergence between our
perlasm and upstream's. This change in upstream came with the following comment
in Configure:
Note that -march is not among compiler options in below linux-armv4
target line. Not specifying one is intentional to give you choice to:
a) rely on your compiler default by not specifying one;
b) specify your target platform explicitly for optimal performance,
e.g. -march=armv6 or -march=armv7-a;
c) build "universal" binary that targets *range* of platforms by
specifying minimum and maximum supported architecture;
As for c) option. It actually makes no sense to specify maximum to be
less than ARMv7, because it's the least requirement for run-time
switch between platform-specific code paths. And without run-time
switch performance would be equivalent to one for minimum. Secondly,
there are some natural limitations that you'd have to accept and
respect. Most notably you can *not* build "universal" binary for
big-endian platform. This is because ARMv7 processor always picks
instructions in little-endian order. Another similar limitation is
that -mthumb can't "cross" -march=armv6t2 boundary, because that's
where it became Thumb-2. Well, this limitation is a bit artificial,
because it's not really impossible, but it's deemed too tricky to
support. And of course you have to be sure that your binutils are
actually up to the task of handling maximum target platform.
Change-Id: Ie5f674d603393f0a1354a0d0973987484a4a650c
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4488
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Pointer out and suggested by: Ard Biesheuvel.
(Imported from upstream's 5dcf70a1c57c2019bfad640fe14fd4a73212860a)
This is from a while ago, but it's one source of divergence between our copy of
these files and master's.
Change-Id: I6525a27f25eb86a92420c32996af47ecc42ee020
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4487
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(Imported from upstream's 7eeeb49e1103533bc81c234eb19613353866e474)
Here are the performance numbers on a Nexus 9 (32-bit binary):
Before:
Did 4376000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000016us (4375930.0 ops/sec): 70.0 MB/s
Did 642000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1001090us (641301.0 ops/sec): 865.8 MB/s
Did 126000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1001460us (125816.3 ops/sec): 1030.7 MB/s
Did 4120000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000004us (4119983.5 ops/sec): 65.9 MB/s
Did 547000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1001165us (546363.5 ops/sec): 737.6 MB/s
Did 99000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1000027us (98997.3 ops/sec): 811.0 MB/s
After:
Did 4569000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000011us (4568949.7 ops/sec): 73.1 MB/s
Did 796000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1000161us (795871.9 ops/sec): 1074.4 MB/s
Did 162000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1003828us (161382.2 ops/sec): 1322.0 MB/s
Did 4398000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000001us (4397995.6 ops/sec): 70.4 MB/s
Did 634000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1001290us (633183.2 ops/sec): 854.8 MB/s
Did 122000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1005650us (121314.6 ops/sec): 993.8 MB/s
Change-Id: I2fef921069ad174f5651dfe59be262625fb3f7c9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4483
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
ARM has optimized Cortex-A5x pipeline to favour pairs of complementary
AES instructions. While modified code improves performance of post-r0p0
Cortex-A53 performance by >40% (for CBC decrypt and CTR), it hurts
original r0p0. We favour later revisions, because one can't prevent
future from coming. Improvement on post-r0p0 Cortex-A57 exceeds 50%,
while new code is not slower on r0p0, or Apple A7 for that matter.
[Update even SHA results for latest Cortex-A53.]
(Imported from upstream's 94376cccb4ed5b376220bffe0739140ea9dad8c8)
Change-Id: I581c65b566116b1f4211fb1bd5a1a54479889d70
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4481
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(Imported from upstream's 7b644df899d0c818488686affc0bfe2dfdd0d0c2)
Looking at update_gypi_and_asm.py with git diff -w, the only differences seem
to be that .asciz fixed a bug where a space after a ',' got swallowed (sigh).
BUG=338886
Change-Id: Ib52296f4a62bc6f892a0d4ee7367493a8c639a3b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4480
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
MSVC seems to dislike the zero-array trick in C++, but not C. Turns out there
was no need for the include, so that's an easy fix.
Change-Id: I6def7b430a450c4ff7eeafa3611f0d40f5fc5945
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4580
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
RFC 5915 requires the use of the I2OSP primitive as defined in RFC 3447
for encoding ECPrivateKey. Fix this and add a test.
See also upstream's 30cd4ff294252c4b6a4b69cbef6a5b4117705d22, though it mixes
up degree and order.
Change-Id: I81ba14da3c8d69e3799422c669fab7f16956f322
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4469
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Follow-up to sha256-armv4.pl in cooperation with Ard Biesheuvel
(Linaro) and Sami Tolvanen (Google).
(Imported from upstream's b1a5d1c652086257930a1f62ae51c9cdee654b2c.)
Change-Id: Ibc4f289cc8f499924ade8d6b8d494f53bc08bda7
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4467
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
(Imported from upstream's 51f8d095562f36cdaa6893597b5c609e943b0565.)
I don't see why we'd care, but just to minimize divergence.
Change-Id: I4b07e72c88fcb04654ad28d8fd371e13d59a61b5
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/4466
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
