Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
GH: #4672

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NMatthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre@ncp-e.com>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5477)

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4008)

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4008)

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4008)

Related to #3709
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4008)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3709)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3709)

This is to address issue #3404, only works in Unix-like platforms
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/3709)

Reviewed-by: NBen Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5482)

Thumb2 addresses are a bit a mess, depending on whether a label is
interpreted as a function pointer value (for use with BX and BLX) or as
a program counter value (for use with PC-relative addressing). Clang's
integrated assembler mis-assembles this code. See
https://crbug.com/124610#c54 for details.

Instead, use the ADR pseudo-instruction which has clear semantics and
should be supported by every assembler that handles the OpenSSL Thumb2
code. (In other files, the ADR vs SUB conditionals are based on
__thumb2__ already. For some reason, this one is based on __APPLE__, I'm
guessing to deal with an older version of clang assembler.)

It's unclear to me which of clang or binutils is "correct" or if this is
even a well-defined notion beyond "whatever binutils does". But I will
note that https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/4669 suggests binutils
has also changed behavior around this before.
Reviewed-by: NAndy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5431)

CLA: trivial
Reviewed-by: NMatthias St. Pierre <Matthias.St.Pierre@ncp-e.com>
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5473)

And only generate one output "file" at a time for objects.pl
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5432)

Fixes #5471
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5472)

Fixes #5471
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5472)

Fixes #5405, #1381

The base64 filter BIO reads its input in chunks of B64_BLOCK_SIZE bytes.
When processing input in PEM format it can happen in rare cases that

- the trailing PEM marker crosses the boundary of a chunk, and
- the beginning of the following chunk contains valid base64 encoded data.

This happened in issue #5405, where the PEM marker was split into
"-----END CER" and "TIFICATE-----" at the end of the first chunk.

The decoding of the first chunk terminated correctly at the '-' character,
which is treated as an EOF marker, and b64_read() returned. However,
when called the second time, b64_read() read the next chunk and interpreted
the string "TIFICATE" as valid base64 encoded data, adding 6 extra bytes
'4c 81 48 08 04 c4'.

This patch restores the assignment of the error code to 'ctx->cont', which
was deleted accidentally in commit 5562cfac and which prevents b64_read()
from reading additional data on subsequent calls.

This issue was observed and reported by Annie Yousar.
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5422)

Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>

Otherwise we get a use after free if the test order is randomised.
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5467)

Even though mlock(2) was standardized in POSIX.1-2001, vendors did
implement it prior that point.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5460)

fabs(3m) is customarily inlined, but it's not, one has to link with -lm.
Since fabs(3m) is the only reference, it makes more sense to avoid it.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>

This commit adds SSL_export_keying_material_early() which exports
keying material using early exporter master secret.
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5252)

With this, we introduce the make variable 'libdir', which differs from
'LIBDIR' not only in casing, but also by being the absolute path to
the library installation directory.  This variable is intentionally
compatible with the GNU coding standards.

When --libdir is given an absolute path, it is considered as a value
according to GNU coding standards, and the variables LIBDIR and libdir
will be this:

    LIBDIR=
    libdir=/absolute/path

When --libdir is given a relative path (just the name of the desired
library directory), or not given at all, it is considered as a
"traditional" OpenSSL value, and the variables LIBDIR and libdir will
be this:

    LIBDIR=relativepath
    libdir=$(INSTALLTOP)/$(LIBDIR)

Fixes #5398
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5446)

makedepend makes lesser sense in a throw-away build like CI, but
it spares some computational time, because with MSVC it takes
separate per-file compiler invocation.
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5452)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5449)

As it turns out gcc -pedantic doesn't seem to consider __uint128_t
as non-standard, unlike __int128 that is.

Fix even MSVC warnings in curve25519.c.
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5449)

SPARC condition in __SIZEOF_INT128__==16 is rather performance thing
than portability. Even though compiler advertises int128 capability,
corresponding operations are inefficient, because they are not
directly backed by instruction set.
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5449)

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
Reviewed-by: NRichard Levitte <levitte@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5447)

Reviewed-by: NAndy Polyakov <appro@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5439)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5426)

Reviewed-by: NRich Salz <rsalz@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/5434)

[extended tests]
Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2688)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2688)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2688)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2688)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2688)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2688)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2688)

Reviewed-by: NMatt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>
(Merged from https://github.com/openssl/openssl/pull/2688)