tree 7792c5ddaf5f46a6b57b6674de71ad01bca2e272
parent 3f5b43df0752a877c744a9cac918e4f5e8d3aed6
author David Benjamin <davidben@chromium.org> 1450376297 -0500
committer Adam Langley <agl@google.com> 1450743120 +0000

Reject calls to X509_verify_cert that have not been reinitialised

The function X509_verify_cert checks the value of |ctx->chain| at the
beginning, and if it is NULL then it initialises it, along with the value
of |ctx->untrusted|. The normal way to use X509_verify_cert() is to first
call X509_STORE_CTX_init(); then set up various parameters etc; then call
X509_verify_cert(); then check the results; and finally call
X509_STORE_CTX_cleanup(). The initial call to X509_STORE_CTX_init() sets
|ctx->chain| to NULL. The only place in the OpenSSL codebase  where
|ctx->chain| is set to anything other than a non NULL value is in
X509_verify_cert itself. Therefore the only ways that |ctx->chain| could be
non NULL on entry to X509_verify_cert is if one of the following occurs:
1) An application calls X509_verify_cert() twice without re-initialising
in between.
2) An application reaches inside the X509_STORE_CTX structure and changes
the value of |ctx->chain| directly.

With regards to the second of these, we should discount this - it should
not be supported to allow this.

With regards to the first of these, the documentation is not exactly
crystal clear, but the implication is that you must call
X509_STORE_CTX_init() before each call to X509_verify_cert(). If you fail
to do this then, at best, the results would be undefined.

Calling X509_verify_cert() with |ctx->chain| set to a non NULL value is
likely to have unexpected results, and could be dangerous. This commit
changes the behaviour of X509_verify_cert() so that it causes an error if
|ctx->chain| is anything other than NULL (because this indicates that we
have not been initialised properly). It also clarifies the associated
documentation.

(Imported from upstream's 692f07c3e0c04180b56febc2feb57cd94395a7a2.)

Change-Id: I971f1a305f12bbf9f4ae955313d5557368f0d374
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/6760
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>