Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17280)
Add test cases for RNDR and RNDRRS. Combine tests for RDRAND and RNDR to
share common logic.
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/15361)
Where a chain has name constraints but a certificate does not have a SAN
extension but the CN meets the constraints, then this should be acceptable.
However, and OpenSSL bug meant that an internal error was being reported.
This adds a test case for that scenario.
Test for CVE-2021-4044
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
It is valid for name constraints to be in force but for there to be no
SAN extension in a certificate. Previous versions of OpenSSL mishandled
this.
Test for CVE-2021-4044
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
bn_sqr_comba8 does for instance compute a wrong result for the value:
a=0x4aaac919 62056c84 fba7334e 1a6be678 022181ba fd3aa878 899b2346 ee210f45
The correct result is:
r=0x15c72e32 605a3061 d11b1012 3c187483 6df96999 bd0c22ba d3e7d437 4724a82f
912c5e61 6a187efe 8f7c47fc f6945fe5 75be8e3d 97ed17d4 7950b465 3cb32899
but the actual result was:
r=0x15c72e32 605a3061 d11b1012 3c187483 6df96999 bd0c22ba d3e7d437 4724a82f
912c5e61 6a187efe 8f7c47fc f6945fe5 75be8e3c 97ed17d4 7950b465 3cb32899
so the forth word of the result was 0x75be8e3c but should have been
0x75be8e3d instead.
Likewise bn_sqr_comba4 has an identical bug for the same value as well:
a=0x022181ba fd3aa878 899b2346 ee210f45
correct result:
r=0x00048a69 9fe82f8b 62bd2ed1 88781335 75be8e3d 97ed17d4 7950b465 3cb32899
wrong result:
r=0x00048a69 9fe82f8b 62bd2ed1 88781335 75be8e3c 97ed17d4 7950b465 3cb32899
Fortunately the bn_mul_comba4/8 code paths are not affected.
Also the mips64 target does in fact not handle the carry propagation
correctly.
Example:
a=0x4aaac91900000000 62056c8400000000 fba7334e00000000 1a6be67800000000
022181ba00000000 fd3aa87800000000 899b234635dad283 ee210f4500000001
correct result:
r=0x15c72e32272c4471 392debf018c679c8 b85496496bf8254c d0204f36611e2be1
0cdb3db8f3c081d8 c94ba0e1bacc5061 191b83d47ff929f6 5be0aebfc13ae68d
3eea7a7fdf2f5758 42f7ec656cab3cb5 6a28095be34756f2 64f24687bf37de06
2822309cd1d292f9 6fa698c972372f09 771e97d3a868cda0 dc421e8a00000001
wrong result:
r=0x15c72e32272c4471 392debf018c679c8 b85496496bf8254c d0204f36611e2be1
0cdb3db8f3c081d8 c94ba0e1bacc5061 191b83d47ff929f6 5be0aebfc13ae68d
3eea7a7fdf2f5758 42f7ec656cab3cb5 6a28095be34756f2 64f24687bf37de06
2822309cd1d292f8 6fa698c972372f09 771e97d3a868cda0 dc421e8a00000001
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17258)
test_fromdata() turns out to be a bit inflexible, so we split it into
two functions, make_key_fromdata() and test_selection(), and adjust
test_EVP_PKEY_ffc_priv_pub() and test_EC_priv_pub() accordingly. This
allows us to check the resulting keys further, not only to check that
the bits we expect are there, but also that the bits that we expect
not to be there to actually not be there!
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16765)
Fixes#17109
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17119)
Reviewed-by: Tim Hudson <tjh@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Richard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17181)
When an integer value was specified, it was not being passed back via
the orig_p2 weirdness.
Regression test included.
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17136)
This looks like old code, written when the padded variety of BN_bn2bin()
was developped, and disabled by default... and forgotten.
A few simple changes to update it to the current API is all that was
needed to enable it.
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17133)
With arbitrary size ints, we get to know exactly how large the minimum
buffer must be.
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17104)
Also update OBJ_nid2obj.pod to document the possible return values.
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17005)
It uses AVX512_IFMA + AVX512_VL (with 256-bit wide registers) ISA to
keep lower power license.
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/14908)
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17033)
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17031)
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17030)
Signed-off-by: Peiwei Hu <jlu.hpw@foxmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17029)
We expect attempting to create such short keys to fail
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: Paul Dale <pauli@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/17041)
Run more threads and load the legacy provider (which uses a child lib ctx)
in order to hit more possible thread failures.
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16980)
If a provider doesn't have any child providers then there is no need
to attempt to remove them - so we should not do so. This removes some
potentialy thread races.
Reviewed-by: Tomas Mraz <tomas@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/16980)
