Hi, I have some questions regarding this implementation.
https://github.com/openssl/openssl/blob/e0e920b1a063f14f36418f8795c96f2c649400e1/crypto/ec/ecp_nistz256.c 1. In ecp_nistz256_points_mul, we have this code: if ((BN_num_bits(scalar) > 256) { ... if (!BN_nnmod(tmp_scalar, scalar, &group->order, ctx)) {...} scalar = tmp_scalar; } I think it would be useful to add a comment about why this is OK in terms of the constant-time-correctness of the code, because it isn't obvious. 2. Later in the same function, we have this code: bn_correct_top(r->X); bn_correct_top(r->Y); bn_correct_top(r->Z); Again, it isn't clear why it is OK to call bn_correct_top given that bn_correct_top isn't a constant-time function. I think either this code should be changed so that it is constant time, or a comment should be added explaining why it doesn't need to be. 3. When doing the initial adaptation of the code to get it working inside of BoringSSL, I had to make this change: bn_correct_top(r->X); bn_correct_top(r->Y); bn_correct_top(r->Z); + r->Z_is_one = is_one(p.p.Z); (Alternatively, maybe one can change BoringSSL's implementation of EC_POINT_is_at_infinity to ignore r->Z_is_one like OpenSSL's implementation does.) Looking at the OpenSSL code, I can see that Z_is_one is only used for optimization purposes in the "simple" ECC implementation. Even ignoring BoringSSL being different, I found it confusing that sometimes Z_is_one *must* be set correctly and other times it *must* be ignored. Perhaps it is worth renaming this member to "simple_Z_is_one" and/or documenting more clearly when it is maintained and when it can and cannot be used. Alternatively, I noticed that BN_is_one is not a very expensive function, and probably can be made even less expensive, so the optimization of using the Z_is_one flag instead of just calling BN_is_one may not be worthwhile. Perhaps it would be better to remove it completely? 4. There seems to be quite a bit of missing error checking in this code. For example, the return values of calls to bn_wexpand are not checked in multiple functions. Further, a lot of the error checking in the probably-never-used ecp_nistz256_mult_precompute function is missing, e.g. calls to EC_POINT_new, EC_POINT_copy, and ec_GFp_simple_{add,dbl,make_affine}. I think this whole file needs to be combed for missing error checks. 5. In ecp_nistz256_mult_precompute, if the ctx parameter is null, a new context will be created with BN_CTX_new but BN_CTX_free is not called anywhere in the file. All that aside, this code is very fast, and it is awesome that it got adapted to non-X64 platforms already! Cheers, Brian
_______________________________________________ openssl-dev mailing list To unsubscribe: https://mta.openssl.org/mailman/listinfo/openssl-dev