While ChaCha20 takes a 64-bit nonce, SSH-2 defines the message
sequence number to wrap at 2^32 and OpenSSH stores it in a u_int32_t,
so the upper 32 bits should always be zero. PuTTY was getting this
wrong, and either using an incorrect nonce or causing GCC to complain
about an invalid shift, depending on the size of "unsigned long". Now
I think it gets it right.
gcc and clang both provide a type called __uint128_t when compiling
for 64-bit targets, code-generated more or less similarly to the way
64-bit long longs are handled on 32-bit targets (spanning two
registers, using ADD/ADC, that sort of thing). Where this is available
(and they also provide a handy macro to make it easy to detect), we
should obviously use it, so that we can handle bignums a larger chunk
at a time and make use of the full width of the hardware's multiplier.
Preliminary benchmarking using 'testbn' suggests a factor of about 2.5
improvement.
I've added the new possibility to the ifdefs in sshbn.h, and also
re-run contrib/make1305.py to generate a set of variants of the
poly1305 arithmetic for the new size of BignumInt.
In many places I was using an 'unsigned int', or an implicit int by
virtue of writing an undecorated integer literal, where what was
really wanted was a BignumInt. In particular, this substitution breaks
in any situation where BignumInt is _larger_ than unsigned - which it
is shortly about to be.
Rather than doing arithmetic mod 2^130-5 using the general-purpose
Bignum library, which requires lots of mallocs and frees per operation
and also uses a general-purpose divide routine for each modular
reduction, we now have some dedicated routines in sshccp.c to do
arithmetic mod 2^130-5 in a more efficient way, and hopefully also
with data-independent performance.
Because PuTTY's target platforms don't all use the same size of bignum
component, I've arranged to auto-generate the arithmetic functions
using a Python script living in the 'contrib' directory. As and when
we need to support an extra BignumInt size, that script should still
be around to re-run with different arguments.
I'd rather see the cipher and MAC named separately, with a hint that
the two are linked together in some way, than see the cipher called by
a name including the MAC and the MAC init message have an ugly
'<implicit>' in it.
