delocate: remove the need to demangle local variables

We need to demangle because the backing storage for a delocated BSS
symbol is declared static. The compiler seems to be always give it a
C++-mangled name. But we relied on those names to infer the names of the
bss_get functions that the rest of the code wanted.

Instead, if we make the backing storage non-static, we get the name we
want. Ideally we would avoid having to extract those names (see
https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/70849), but
faking the linker script behavior in delocate seemed tricky, so I opted
to do this and then we can finish up the linker script version later.

While I'm here, prefix the underlying names with 'bcm_' so we're not
squatting as much of the namespace.

Change-Id: I1ce9a189e620c872511dbce09d23e655f1593d34
Reviewed-on: https://boringssl-review.googlesource.com/c/boringssl/+/76847
Reviewed-by: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Commit-Queue: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
Auto-Submit: David Benjamin <davidben@google.com>
4 files changed
tree: cd2d6dd22e9aa5eb49c442bb384ae53c7b02dca0
  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: