Remove redundant GCM tests

The test vectors in gcm_tests.txt are just AES-GCM test vectors, all of
which are already present in our existing AES-GCM test vector files. To
test it we were just reimplementing AES-GCM with the low-level GCM bits.

With that, the only code remaining in gcm_test.cc was code we wrote,
added in 2019 in
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/34266.

(Plus, with the exception of the last two, the test vectors, which used
to be embedded in the file, are actually just NIST test vectors. The
test driver code itself, since removed, does not appear to ever have
been derived from OpenSSL.)

This also removes the need to export the internal functions out of the
shared library build. (Though, in general, we probably should just be
turning those tests off in shared library builds.)

Change-Id: Ibb2b54f3c044a75a147f9fe8cc040b60e9a97482
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/73787
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Auto-Submit: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
8 files changed
tree: 973730c3c4325441dcf9dd164a5d2df6fb6c7f26
  1. .bcr/
  2. .github/
  3. cmake/
  4. crypto/
  5. decrepit/
  6. docs/
  7. fuzz/
  8. gen/
  9. include/
  10. infra/
  11. pki/
  12. rust/
  13. ssl/
  14. third_party/
  15. tool/
  16. util/
  17. .bazelignore
  18. .bazelrc
  19. .bazelversion
  20. .clang-format
  21. .gitignore
  22. API-CONVENTIONS.md
  23. BREAKING-CHANGES.md
  24. BUILD.bazel
  25. build.json
  26. BUILDING.md
  27. CMakeLists.txt
  28. codereview.settings
  29. CONTRIBUTING.md
  30. FUZZING.md
  31. go.mod
  32. go.sum
  33. INCORPORATING.md
  34. LICENSE
  35. MODULE.bazel
  36. MODULE.bazel.lock
  37. PORTING.md
  38. PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy
  39. README.md
  40. SANDBOXING.md
  41. STYLE.md
README.md

BoringSSL

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.

Project links:

To file a security issue, use the Chromium process and mention in the report this is for BoringSSL. You can ignore the parts of the process that are specific to Chromium/Chrome.

There are other files in this directory which might be helpful: