This test was part of the test that we handled zero iterations
correctly. Recently we switched to using `NonZero` which
prevents zero iterations from being requested at build time, so
that test was removed. Remove this leftover fragment too. Note that
there is still a test for one iteration in pkbdf2_tests.txt.
AES_set_*_key used to call directly into aes_nohw_set_*_key which
gracefully handles some NULL parameters and invalid bit sizes. However,
we now enable optimized assembly implementations, not all of which
perform these checks. (vpaes does not.)
This is fine for the internal assembly functions themselves. Such checks
are better written in C than assembly, and the calling C code usually
already knows the key size. (Indeed aes_ctr_set_key already assumes the
assembly functions are infallible.) AES_set_*_key are public APIs,
however. The NULL check is silly, but we should handle length-like
checks in public APIs.
Change-Id: I259ae6b9811ceaa9dc5bd7173d5754ca7079cff8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35564
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Test invalid nonce lengths more thoroughly to cover this case on all our
AEADs. Thanks to Guido Vranken for catching this!
In doing so, this also reveals we have a ton of redundant error codes
(https://crbug.com/boringssl/269). I'll tidy that up in a separate
change as it may require some changes to code in Android. For now, this
change uses CIPHER_R_UNSUPPORTED_NONCE_SIZE just to be consistent with
the rest of that file.
Bug: 268
Change-Id: I0a479000ec3005ee55c828eaa92c8302b4625847
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35545
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Child and root CBBs share a type, but are different kinds of things. C++
programmers sometimes mistakenly believe they should use ScopedCBB for
everything. This mostly works because we NULL cbb->child->base on flush,
making CBB_cleanup a no-op. This zeroing also skips the assert in
CBB_cleanup. (If we ran it unconditionally, CBB_zero + CBB_cleanup would
not work.)
However, if a CBB operation fails and a function returns early, the
child CBB is not cleared. ScopedCBB will then call CBB_cleanup which
trips the assert but, in release build, misbehaves.
Run the assert unconditionally and, when the assert fails, still behave
well. To make this work with CBB_zero, negate is_top_level to is_child,
so a flushed child CBB and a (presumably) root CBB in the zero state are
distinguishable.
Update-Note: Code that was using CBB wrong may trip an assert in debug builds.
Change-Id: Ifea7759e1d0331f2e727c59bbafa355d70fb9dba
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35524
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
The new version of googletest deprecates INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P in
favor of INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P, so apply the change.
This requires blacklisting C4628 on MSVC 2015 which says about digraphs
given foo<::std::tuple<...>>. Disable that warning. Digraphs are not
useful and C++11 apparently explicitly disambiguates that.
It also requires applying
https://github.com/google/googletest/pull/2226, to deal with a warning
in older MSVC.
Update-Note: Consumers using BoringSSL with their own copy of googletest
must ensure googletest was updated to a version from 2019-01-03 or
later for INSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P to work. (I believe all relevant
consumers are fine here. If anyone can't update googletest and is
building BoringSSL tests, building with
-DINSTANTIATE_TEST_SUITE_P=INSTANTIATE_TEST_CASE_P would work as
workaround.)
Bug: chromium:936651
Change-Id: I23ada8de34a53131cab88a36a88d3185ab085c64
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35504
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We usually name output parameters 'out'. (Someone made a C++ templating
change in Chromium which messed up const-ness, saw the compile error,
and thought it was in MD5_Final.) Also tag the parameters with the
sizes.
Sadly, there's a bit of goofiness around SHA224_Final/SHA256_Final and
SHA384_Final/SHA512_Final, but they're just documentation anyway.
(Though it does touch on the mess that is sha->md_len which would be
nice to clear through somehow.)
Change-Id: I1918b7eecfe13f13b217d01d4414ac2358802354
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35484
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
For HMAC-SHA-384 we previously generated keys larger than the tag
length because that's arguably more secure. However, the most commonly
used recommendation is to make the key length equal to the output
length, so do that instead. Some standards require it.
The new version has trap flag emulation, which is great for our ABI
tests. This CL doesn't enable it yet, however. The emulation is slightly
off on when traps start and stop, so the ABI tester will need to tweaked
to be more lenient.
Change-Id: I0eb20176dc63eaa1c35f77379b34f7bb6c0b0407
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35464
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
When `out` is the same length as the digest output an extra iteration
of HMAC was executed and then thrown away. Avoid that extra iteration.
Note that an extra iteration is still done in the degenerate case where
`out` is empty, because it's better to optimize for the case where `out`
isn't empty.
The output is exactly the same as before.
When building node with boringssl, `SSL_CTX_get_min_proto_version` and
`SSL_CTX_get_max_proto_version` are used. Openssl exposes those; this
change adds support for boringssl.
For this to work right in DTLS, we switch conf_{min,max}_version to store wire
versions, rather than our internal normalized versions.
Change-Id: I282ed224806c41f69e6f166ca97c6cc05ff51f17
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35404
Reviewed-by: Nitish Sakhawalkar <nitsakh@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
With bsaes-x86_64.pl gone, it is no longer needed. Depending on how armv7 works
(if vpaes-armv7.pl is too slow AND on-demand vpaes->bsaes key conversion is not
viable), we may need to bring it back, but get it out of the way for now.
Bug: 256
Change-Id: I762c83097bd03d88574ae1ae16b88fca6826f655
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35365
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Brian Smith suggested applying vpaes-armv8's "2x" optimization to
vpaes-x86_64. The registers are a little tight (aarch64 has a whole 32
SIMD registers, while x86_64 only has 16), but it's doable with some
spills and makes vpaes much more competitive with bsaes. At small- and
medium-sized inputs, vpaes now matches bsaes. At large inputs, it's a
~10% perf hit.
bsaes is thus pulling much less weight. Losing an entire AES
implementation and having constant-time AES for SSSE3 is attractive.
Some notes:
- The fact that these are older CPUs tempers the perf hit, but CPUs
without AES-NI are still common enough to matter.
- This CL does regress CBC decrypt performance nontrivially (see below).
If this matters, we can double-up CBC decryption too. CBC in TLS is
legacy and already pays a costly Lucky13 mitigation.
- The difference between 1350 and 8192 bytes is likely bsaes AES-GCM
paying for two slow (and variable-time!) aes_nohw_encrypt
calls for EK0 and the trailing partial block. At larger inputs, those
two calls are more amortized.
- To that end, bsaes would likely be much faster on AES-GCM with smarter
use of bsaes. (Fold one-off calls above into bulk data.) Implementing
this is a bit of a nuisance though, especially considering we don't
wish to regress hwaes.
- I'd discarded the key conversion idea, but I think I did it wrong.
Benchmarks from
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/33589 suggest
converting to bsaes format on-demand for large ctr32 inputs should
give the best of both worlds, but at the cost of an entire AES
implementation relative to this CL.
- ARMv7 still depends on bsaes and has no vpaes. It also has 16 SIMD
registers, so my plan is to translate it, with the same 2x
optimization, and see how it compares. Hopefully that, or some
combination of the above, will work for ARMv7.
Sandy Bridge
bsaes (before):
Did 3144750 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 5016000us (626943.8 ops/sec): 10.0 MB/s
Did 2053750 AES-128-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 5016000us (409439.8 ops/sec): 104.8 MB/s
Did 469000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 5015000us (93519.4 ops/sec): 126.3 MB/s
Did 92500 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 5016000us (18441.0 ops/sec): 151.1 MB/s
Did 46750 AES-128-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 5032000us (9290.5 ops/sec): 152.2 MB/s
vpaes-1x (for reference, not this CL):
Did 8684750 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 5015000us (1731754.7 ops/sec): 27.7 MB/s [+177%]
Did 1731500 AES-128-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 5016000us (345195.4 ops/sec): 88.4 MB/s [-15.6%]
Did 346500 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 5016000us (69078.9 ops/sec): 93.3 MB/s [-26.1%]
Did 61250 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 5015000us (12213.4 ops/sec): 100.1 MB/s [-33.8%]
Did 32500 AES-128-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 5031000us (6459.9 ops/sec): 105.8 MB/s [-30.5%]
vpaes-2x (this CL):
Did 8840000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 5015000us (1762711.9 ops/sec): 28.2 MB/s [+182%]
Did 2167750 AES-128-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 5016000us (432167.1 ops/sec): 110.6 MB/s [+5.5%]
Did 474000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 5016000us (94497.6 ops/sec): 127.6 MB/s [+1.0%]
Did 81750 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 5015000us (16301.1 ops/sec): 133.5 MB/s [-11.6%]
Did 41750 AES-128-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 5031000us (8298.5 ops/sec): 136.0 MB/s [-10.6%]
Penryn
bsaes (before):
Did 958000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000264us (957747.2 ops/sec): 15.3 MB/s
Did 420000 AES-128-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 1000480us (419798.5 ops/sec): 107.5 MB/s
Did 96000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1001083us (95896.1 ops/sec): 129.5 MB/s
Did 18000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1042491us (17266.3 ops/sec): 141.4 MB/s
Did 9482 AES-128-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 1095703us (8653.8 ops/sec): 141.8 MB/s
Did 758000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000769us (757417.5 ops/sec): 12.1 MB/s
Did 359000 AES-256-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 1001993us (358285.9 ops/sec): 91.7 MB/s
Did 82000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1009583us (81221.7 ops/sec): 109.6 MB/s
Did 15000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1022294us (14672.9 ops/sec): 120.2 MB/s
Did 7884 AES-256-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 1070934us (7361.8 ops/sec): 120.6 MB/s
vpaes-1x (for reference, not this CL):
Did 2030000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000227us (2029539.3 ops/sec): 32.5 MB/s [+112%]
Did 382000 AES-128-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 1001949us (381256.9 ops/sec): 97.6 MB/s [-9.2%]
Did 81000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1007297us (80413.2 ops/sec): 108.6 MB/s [-16.1%]
Did 14000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1031499us (13572.5 ops/sec): 111.2 MB/s [-21.4%]
Did 7008 AES-128-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 1030706us (6799.2 ops/sec): 111.4 MB/s [-21.4%]
Did 1838000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000238us (1837562.7 ops/sec): 29.4 MB/s [+143%]
Did 321000 AES-256-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 1001666us (320466.1 ops/sec): 82.0 MB/s [-10.6%]
Did 67000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1010359us (66313.1 ops/sec): 89.5 MB/s [-18.3%]
Did 12000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1072706us (11186.7 ops/sec): 91.6 MB/s [-23.8%]
Did 5680 AES-256-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 1009214us (5628.1 ops/sec): 92.2 MB/s [-23.5%]
vpaes-2x (this CL):
Did 2072000 AES-128-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000066us (2071863.3 ops/sec): 33.1 MB/s [+116%]
Did 432000 AES-128-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 1000732us (431684.0 ops/sec): 110.5 MB/s [+2.8%]
Did 92000 AES-128-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1000580us (91946.7 ops/sec): 124.1 MB/s [-4.2%]
Did 16000 AES-128-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1016422us (15741.5 ops/sec): 129.0 MB/s [-8.8%]
Did 8448 AES-128-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 1073962us (7866.2 ops/sec): 128.9 MB/s [-9.1%]
Did 1865000 AES-256-GCM (16 bytes) seal operations in 1000043us (1864919.8 ops/sec): 29.8 MB/s [+146%]
Did 364000 AES-256-GCM (256 bytes) seal operations in 1001561us (363432.7 ops/sec): 93.0 MB/s [+1.4%]
Did 77000 AES-256-GCM (1350 bytes) seal operations in 1004123us (76683.8 ops/sec): 103.5 MB/s [-5.6%]
Did 14000 AES-256-GCM (8192 bytes) seal operations in 1071179us (13069.7 ops/sec): 107.1 MB/s [-10.9%]
Did 7008 AES-256-GCM (16384 bytes) seal operations in 1074125us (6524.4 ops/sec): 106.9 MB/s [-11.4%]
Penryn, CBC mode decryption
bsaes (before):
Did 159000 AES-128-CBC-SHA1 (16 bytes) open operations in 1001019us (158838.1 ops/sec): 2.5 MB/s
Did 114000 AES-128-CBC-SHA1 (256 bytes) open operations in 1006485us (113265.5 ops/sec): 29.0 MB/s
Did 65000 AES-128-CBC-SHA1 (1350 bytes) open operations in 1008441us (64455.9 ops/sec): 87.0 MB/s
Did 17000 AES-128-CBC-SHA1 (8192 bytes) open operations in 1005440us (16908.0 ops/sec): 138.5 MB/s
vpaes (after):
Did 167000 AES-128-CBC-SHA1 (16 bytes) open operations in 1003556us (166408.3 ops/sec): 2.7 MB/s [+8%]
Did 112000 AES-128-CBC-SHA1 (256 bytes) open operations in 1005673us (111368.2 ops/sec): 28.5 MB/s [-1.7%]
Did 56000 AES-128-CBC-SHA1 (1350 bytes) open operations in 1005647us (55685.5 ops/sec): 75.2 MB/s [-13.6%]
Did 13635 AES-128-CBC-SHA1 (8192 bytes) open operations in 1020486us (13361.3 ops/sec): 109.5 MB/s [-20.9%]
Bug: 256
Change-Id: I11ed773323ec7a5ee61080c9ed9ed4761849828a
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35364
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
When servers have a lot of data to send and aren't as latency-sensitive,
it makes sense to send large TLS records, so we care about measuring
both packet-sized and full-sized payloads.
Change-Id: Ib0cf5e0f8660f68a98a04fa86b5989d4a485528b
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35344
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
