tree 919c82366bd61c64a27641a3d9f3c2ec24b9cf54
parent 34a2c5e47679626ed1b634f7df6468e7d3ae5d94
author David Benjamin <davidben@google.com> 1516974694 -0500
committer CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org> 1517885504 +0000

Don't allocate oversized arrays for bn_mul_recursive.

The power of two computations here were extremely confusing and one of
the comments mixed && and ||. Remove the cached k = j + j value.
Optimizing the j*8, j*8, j*2, and j*4 multiplications is the compiler's
job. If it doesn't manage it, it was only a couple shifts anyway.

With that fixed, it becomes easier to tell that rr was actaully
allocated twice as large as necessary. I suspect rr is also
incorrectly-allocated in the bn_mul_part_recursive case, but I'll wait
until I've checked that function over first. (The array size
documentation on the other bn_{mul,sqr}_recursive functions have had
mistakes before.)

Change-Id: I298400b988e3bd108d01d6a7c8a5b262ddf81feb
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/25364
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
CQ-Verified: CQ bot account: commit-bot@chromium.org <commit-bot@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>