|author||David Benjamin <email@example.com>||Sat Dec 15 18:58:43 2018 -0600|
|committer||CQ bot account: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>||Fri Dec 21 16:09:32 2018 +0000|
Add an ABI testing framework. Dear reader, I must apologize in advance. This CL contains the following: - A new 256-line perlasm file with non-trivial perl bits and a dual-ABI variadic function caller. - C preprocessor gymnastics, with variadic macros and fun facts about __VA_ARGS__'s behavior on empty argument lists. - C++ template gymnastics, including variadic arguments, template specialization, std::enable_if, and machinery to control template argument deduction. Enjoy. This tests that our assembly functions correctly honor platform ABI conventions. Right now this only tests callee-saved registers, but it should be extendable to SEH/CFI unwind testing with single-step debugging APIs. Register-checking does not involve anything funny and should be compatible with SDE. (The future unwind testing is unlikely to be compatible.) This CL adds support for x86_64 SysV and Win64 ABIs. ARM, AArch64, and x86 can be added in the future. The testing is injected in two places. First, all the assembly tests in p256-x86_64-test.cc are now instrumented. This is the intended workflow and should capture all registers. However, we currently do not unit-test our assembly much directly. We should do that as follow-up work but, in the meantime, I've also wrapped all of the GTest main function in an ABI test. This is imperfect as ABI failures may be masked by other stack frames, but it costs nothing and is pretty reliable at catching Win64 xmm register failures.  An alternate strategy would be, in debug builds, unconditionally instrument every assembly call in libcrypto. But the CHECK_ABI macro would be difficult to replicate in pure C, and unwind testing may be too invasive for this. Still, something to consider when we C++ libcrypto.  When single-stepped unwind testing exists, it won't cost nothing. The gtest_main.cc call will turn unwind testing off. Change-Id: I6643b26445891fd46abfacac52bc024024c8d7f6 Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/33764 Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <firstname.lastname@example.org> Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <email@example.com> Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
BoringSSL is a fork of OpenSSL that is designed to meet Google's needs.
Although BoringSSL is an open source project, it is not intended for general use, as OpenSSL is. We don't recommend that third parties depend upon it. Doing so is likely to be frustrating because there are no guarantees of API or ABI stability.
Programs ship their own copies of BoringSSL when they use it and we update everything as needed when deciding to make API changes. This allows us to mostly avoid compromises in the name of compatibility. It works for us, but it may not work for you.
BoringSSL arose because Google used OpenSSL for many years in various ways and, over time, built up a large number of patches that were maintained while tracking upstream OpenSSL. As Google's product portfolio became more complex, more copies of OpenSSL sprung up and the effort involved in maintaining all these patches in multiple places was growing steadily.
Currently BoringSSL is the SSL library in Chrome/Chromium, Android (but it's not part of the NDK) and a number of other apps/programs.
There are other files in this directory which might be helpful: