Assume hyper-threading-like vulnerabilities are always present.

It's not clear that CPUID will always report the correct value here,
especially for hyper-threading environments. It also isn't clear that
the assumptions made by AMD processors are correct and will always be
correct. It also seems likely that, if a code path is
security-sensitive w.r.t. SMT, it is probably also security-sensitive
w.r.t. other processor (mis)features. Finally, it isn't clear that all
dynamic analysis (fuzzing, SDE, etc.) is done separately for the cross
product of all CPU feature combinations * the value of this bit.

With all that in mind, instruct code sensitive to this bit to always
choose the more conservative path.

I only found one place that's sensitive to this bit, though I didn't
look too hard:

```
aes_nohw_cbc_encrypt:
    [...]
    leaq	OPENSSL_ia32cap_P(%rip),%r10
    mov	(%r10), %r10d
    [...]
    bt	\$28,%r10d
    jc	.Lcbc_slow_prologue
```

I didn't verify that the code in the HTT-enabled paths is any better
than the code in the HTT-disabled paths.

Change-Id: Ifd643e6a1301e5ca2174b84c344eb933d49e0067
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/33404
Reviewed-by: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
1 file changed
tree: 2a568be2acc894a58718e8928064022744121990
  1. .github/
  2. crypto/
  3. decrepit/
  4. fipstools/
  5. fuzz/
  6. include/
  7. infra/
  8. ssl/
  9. third_party/
  10. tool/
  11. util/
  12. .clang-format
  13. .gitignore
  14. API-CONVENTIONS.md
  15. BREAKING-CHANGES.md
  16. BUILDING.md
  17. CMakeLists.txt
  18. codereview.settings
  19. CONTRIBUTING.md
  20. FUZZING.md
  21. go.mod
  22. INCORPORATING.md
  23. LICENSE
  24. PORTING.md
  25. README.md
  26. sources.cmake
  27. 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.

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