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!
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!
two functions that did expansion on in parameters (BN_mul() and
BN_sqr()). The problem was solved by making bn_dup_expand() which is
a mix of bn_expand2() and BN_dup().
but the BN code had some problems that would cause failures when
doing certificate verification and some other functions.
Submitted by: Eric A Young from a C2Net version of SSLeay
Reviewed by: Mark J Cox
PR:
