Rewrite crypto_md32_* with templates instead of function pointers

Speculative improvement for b/413675390, but there is insufficient
information in the bug to really be sure, and benchmarking does not seem
to give consistent results.

It seems that crypto_md32_* are not getting inlined when being built
with the NDK, which means we're not specializing by block size and we're
calling the block data functions indirectly. It's unclear what changed
here, as this code has been the same for a while. The root cause might
have been a compiler change.

Either way, switching to templates avoids tempting the compiler into
doing this, without the mess of macros that we had a while ago.
Inspecting the assembly, this seems to fix the codegen, but benchmarking
performance on my test device is very inconsistent.

Change-Id: Ib7c1e97d4d7a3e3b82a8cc5f0418b8b1100c330d
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/78989
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
Auto-Submit: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
6 files changed
tree: 8d3ab3d62d50274e8496a9412832c65938ea3c3f
  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: