)]}'
{
  "commit": "f11ea19043f2b3ee42e4a76d0645914347e1a36e",
  "tree": "0a8dde8d7d4f9cad5e551c297f12fde034f42f86",
  "parents": [
    "bb2e1e1eea7d70492e52878d03f427abc27e358c"
  ],
  "author": {
    "name": "David Benjamin",
    "email": "davidben@google.com",
    "time": "Mon Apr 09 20:17:20 2018 -0400"
  },
  "committer": {
    "name": "CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org",
    "email": "commit-bot@chromium.org",
    "time": "Tue Apr 10 00:58:31 2018 +0000"
  },
  "message": "Actually benchmark RSA verification with a fresh key.\n\nhttps://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/10522 didn\u0027t actually do what\nit was supposed to do. In fact, it appears, not paying attention to it,\nwe\u0027ve managed to make RSA verify slower than ECDSA verify. Oops.\n\nDid 32000 RSA 2048 verify (same key) operations in 1016746us (31473.0 ops/sec)\nDid 5525 RSA 2048 verify (fresh key) operations in 1067209us (5177.1 ops/sec)\nDid 8957 ECDSA P-256 verify operations in 1078570us (8304.5 ops/sec)\n\nThe difference is in setting up the BN_MONT_CTX, either computing R^2 or n0.\nI\u0027m guessing R^2. The current algorithm needs to be constant-time, but we can\nsplit out a variable-time one if necessary.\n\nChange-Id: Ie064a0e464aaa803815b56a6734bc9e2becef1a7\nReviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/27244\nReviewed-by: Adam Langley \u003cagl@google.com\u003e\nCommit-Queue: David Benjamin \u003cdavidben@google.com\u003e\nCQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org \u003ccommit-bot@chromium.org\u003e\n",
  "tree_diff": [
    {
      "type": "modify",
      "old_id": "9c499cb0261d19d79de5fbe8e0833f023acce2f2",
      "old_mode": 33188,
      "old_path": "tool/speed.cc",
      "new_id": "d95fa9e863f2968fdea34c7b1d0e931739363bcb",
      "new_mode": 33188,
      "new_path": "tool/speed.cc"
    }
  ]
}