Prefer vpaes over bsaes in AES-GCM-SIV and AES-CCM.

The AES-GCM-SIV code does not use ctr128_f at all so bsaes is simply
identical to aes_nohw. Also, while CCM encrypts with CTR mode, its MAC
is not parallelizable at all.

(Given the existence of non-parallelizable modes, we ought to make a
vpaes-armv7.pl to ensure constant-time AES on NEON. For now, pick the
right implementation for x86_64 at least.)

aes_ctr_set_key and friends probably aren't the right abstraction
(observe the large vs small inputs hint *almost* matches whether you
touch block128_f), but the right abstraction depends on a couple
questions:

- If you don't provide ctr128_f, is there a perf hit to implementing
  ctr128_f on top of your block128_f to unify calling code?

- It is almost certainly better to use bsaes with gcm.c by calling
  ctr128_f exclusively and paying some copies (a dedicated calling
  convention would be even better, but would be a headache) to integrate
  leading and trailing blocks into the CTR pass. Is this a win, loss, or
  no-op for hwaes, where block128_f is just fine? hwaes is the one mode
  we really should not regress.

Hopefully those will get answered as we continue to chip away at this.

Bug: 256
Change-Id: I8f0150b223b671e68f7da6faaff94a3bea398d4d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/35169
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
2 files changed
tree: b499cd313e59faab9028cf16bc9bf6c911fa0229
  1. .clang-format
  2. .github/
  3. .gitignore
  4. API-CONVENTIONS.md
  5. BREAKING-CHANGES.md
  6. BUILDING.md
  7. CMakeLists.txt
  8. CONTRIBUTING.md
  9. FUZZING.md
  10. INCORPORATING.md
  11. LICENSE
  12. PORTING.md
  13. README.md
  14. STYLE.md
  15. codereview.settings
  16. crypto/
  17. decrepit/
  18. fipstools/
  19. fuzz/
  20. go.mod
  21. include/
  22. sources.cmake
  23. ssl/
  24. third_party/
  25. tool/
  26. util/
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: