and make all files the depend on it include it without prefixing it
with openssl/.
This means that all Makefiles will have $(TOP) as one of the include
directories.
sure they are available in opensslconf.h, by giving them names starting
with "OPENSSL_" to avoid conflicts with other packages and by making
sure e_os2.h will cover all platform-specific cases together with
opensslconf.h.
I've checked fairly well that nothing breaks with this (apart from
external software that will adapt if they have used something like
NO_KRB5), but I can't guarantee it completely, so a review of this
change would be a good thing.
Bleichenbacher's DSA attack. With this implementation, the expected
number of iterations never exceeds 2.
New semantics for BN_rand_range():
BN_rand_range(r, min, range) now generates r such that
min <= r < min+range.
(Previously, BN_rand_range(r, min, max) generated r such that
min <= r < max.
It is more convenient to have the range; also the previous
prototype was misleading because max was larger than
the actual maximum.)
for its ASN1 operations as well as the old style function
pointers (i2d, d2i, new, free). Change standard extensions
to support this.
Fix a warning in BN_mul(), bn_mul.c about uninitialised 'j'.
One problem that looked like a problem in bn_recp.c at first turned
out to be a BN_mul bug. An example is given in bn_recp.c; finding
the bug responsible for this is left as an exercise.
course, that means we need to handle the cases where the two arrays to
bn_mul_recursive() and bn_mul_part_recursive() differ in size.
I haven't yet changed the comments that describe bn_mul_recursive()
and bn_mul_part_recursive(). I want this to be tested by more people
before I consider this change final. Please test away!
The bn_cmp_part_words bug was only caught in the BN_mod_mul() test,
not in the BN_mul() test, so apparently the choice of parameters in
some cases is bad.
But even if this is avoided, there are still segmentation violations
(during one of the BN_free()s at the end of test_kron
in some cases, in other cases during BN_kronecker, or
later in BN_sqrt; choosing a different exponentiation
algorithm in bntest.c appears to influence when the SIGSEGV
takes place).
so we have to reduce the random numbers used in test_mont.
Before this change, test_mont failed in [debug-]solaris-sparcv9-gcc
configurations ("Montgomery multiplication test failed!" because
the multiplication result obtained with Montgomery multiplication
differed from the result obtained by BN_mod_mul).
Substituing the old version of bn_gcd.c (BN_mod_inverse) did not avoid
the problem.
The strange thing is that it I did not observe any problems
when using debug-solaris-sparcv8-gcc and solaris-sparcv9-cc,
as well as when compiling OpenSSL 0.9.6 in the solaric-sparcv9-gcc
configuration on the same system.
This caused a segmentation fault in calls to malloc, so I cleaned up
bn_lib.c a little so that it is easier to see what is going on.
The bug turned out to be an off-by-one error in BN_bin2bn.
These new files will not be included literally in OpenSSL, but I intend
to integrate most of their contents. Most file names will change,
and when the integration is done, the superfluous files will be deleted.
Submitted by: Lenka Fibikova <fibikova@exp-math.uni-essen.de>
I'm a little bit nervous about bn_div_words, as I don't know what it's
supposed to return on overflow. For now, I trust the rest of the
system to give it numbers that will not cause any overflow...
BN_mul() correctly constified, avoids two realloc()'s that aren't
really necessary and saves memory to boot. This required a small
change in bn_mul_part_recursive() and the addition of variants of
bn_cmp_words(), bn_add_words() and bn_sub_words() that can take arrays
with differing sizes.
The test results show a performance that very closely matches the
original code from before my constification. This may seem like a
very small win from a performance point of view, but if one remembers
that the variants of bn_cmp_words(), bn_add_words() and bn_sub_words()
are not at all optimized for the moment (and there's no corresponding
assembler code), and that their use may be just as non-optimal, I'm
pretty confident there are possibilities...
This code needs reviewing!
