GCC 12's -Wstringop-overflow flags issues in SHA224_Final, etc., because
it calls into generic code that might output a SHA-224 length or a
SHA-256 length, and the function prototype declares the array is only
sized for SHA-224.
This is a bit messy because OpenSSL's API for the truncated SHA-2 hashes
allows you to mix and match them. The output size is set by SHA224_Init
and then, originally, SHA256_Final and SHA224_Final were the same thing.
See how OpenSSL's own SHA224 function calls SHA224_Init + SHA256_Final:
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/OpenSSL_1_1_1q/crypto/sha/sha256.c#L49-L61
To get the function prototype bounds to work out, we tightened this
slightly in
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/47807 and added
an assert to SHA224_Final that ctx->md_len was the right size.
SHA256_Final does not have that assert yet. The assert says that mixing
SHA256_Init and SHA224_Final is a caller error.
This isn't good enough for GCC 12, which checks bounds assuming there is
no external invariant on ctx->md_len. This CL changes the behavior of
the shorter Final functions: they will now always output the length
implied by the function name. ctx->md_len only figures into an assert()
call. As we don't have the assert in the untruncated functions yet, I've
preserved their behavior, but the test run with cl/471617180 should tell
us whether apply this to all functions is feasible.
Update-Note: Truncated SHA-2 Final functions change behavior slightly,
but anyone affected by this behavior change would already have tripped
an assert() in debug builds.
Change-Id: I80fdcbe6ad76bc8713c0f2de329b958a2b35e8ae
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/54246
Auto-Submit: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
This is cribbed, with perimssion, from AWS-LC. The FIPS service
indicator[1] signals when an approved service has been completed.
[1] FIPS 140-3 IG 2.4.C
Change-Id: Ib40210d69b3823f4d2a500b23a1606f8d6942f81
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/52568
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We have a ton of per-file rotation functions, often with generic names
that do not tell you whether they are uint32_t vs uint64_t, or rotl vs
rotr.
Additionally, (x >> r) | (x << (32 - r)) is UB at r = 0.
(x >> r) | (x << ((-r) & 31)) works for 0 <= r < 32, which is what
cast.c does. GCC and Clang recognize this pattern as a rotate, but MSVC
doesn't. MSVC does, however, provide functions for this.
We usually rotate by a non-zero constant, which makes this moot, but
rotation comes up often enough that it's worth extracting out. Some
particular changes to call out:
- I've switched sha256.c from rotl to rotr. There was a comment
explaining why it differed from the specification. Now that we have
both functions, it's simpler to just match the specification.
- I've dropped all the inline assembly from sha512.c. Compilers should
be able to recognize rotations in 2021.
Change-Id: Ia1030e8bfe94dad92514ed1c28777447c48b82f9
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/49765
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Similar to
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/46405,
SHA256_Final and SHA224_Final hit array size warnings in the new GCC.
The array sizes are, strictly speaking, purely decoration, but this is a
good warning so we should be clean with it on.
That same change is difficult to apply to md32_common.h because
md32_common.h generates the functions for us. md32_common.h is already
strange in that it is multiply-included and changes behavior based on
macros defined by the caller.
Instead, replace it with inline functions, which are a bit more
conventional and typesafe. This allows each hash function to define the
function prototype. Use this to add an unsized helper for SHA-256.
Bug: 402
Change-Id: I61bc30fb58c54dd40a55c9b1ebf3fb9adde5e038
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/47807
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Peter Foley <pefoley@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
The macro isn't doing any work here.
Change-Id: Id97dfa4b027407c5e4b3e7eb1586c3c2a2d977d8
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/47806
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
We have loads of variations of these. Align them in one set. This avoids
the HOST_* macros defined by md32_common.h, so it'll be a little easier
to make it a more conventional header.
Change-Id: Id47fe7b51a8f961bd87839f8146d8a5aa8027aa6
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/46425
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
David Benjamin
Adam Langley