Put structs in anonymous namespaces to avoid ODR worries.

The referenced bug notes some ODR warnings in an unspecified
configuration. (Which I can't get AppleClang or GCC 14 to reproduce, at
least.) This is likely due to us switching to C++. The ODR rules in C++
are a little different, but also perhaps the detection is only kicking
in for C++.

Either way, structs in .cc files are generally not intended to leave
that compilation unit. (Unless it's an opaque struct listed in base.h.)
There's no such thing as `static struct` so this change wraps many
structs in .cc files in `namespace {`. There are also lots of structs in
test file. Those are less concerning, but test files should mostly
entirely be in a namespace so this change does that where possible for
test files containing structs.

Bug: 384186552
Change-Id: I6ccf715fbcdc3ea6260b5d5d05f305182b1a9450
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/74407
Auto-Submit: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
31 files changed
tree: 2792c1fe0c708cfa8f3ca89931f26ea0d9779bef
  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. AUTHORS
  24. BREAKING-CHANGES.md
  25. BUILD.bazel
  26. build.json
  27. BUILDING.md
  28. CMakeLists.txt
  29. codereview.settings
  30. CONTRIBUTING.md
  31. FUZZING.md
  32. go.mod
  33. go.sum
  34. INCORPORATING.md
  35. LICENSE
  36. MODULE.bazel
  37. MODULE.bazel.lock
  38. PORTING.md
  39. PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy
  40. README.md
  41. SANDBOXING.md
  42. 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: