Runtime instead of compile time support check for curves

[lrstewart]

Problem:

Our lists of ecc curves have to use #if EVP_APIS_SUPPORTED whenever they include s2n_ecc_curve_x25519. That's a lot of conditional compilation that shouldn't be necessary. See

s2n-tls/tls/s2n_ecc_preferences.c

Lines 28 to 43 in b3ee9af

	const struct s2n_ecc_named_curve *const s2n_ecc_pref_list_20200310[] = {
	#if EVP_APIS_SUPPORTED
	&s2n_ecc_curve_x25519,
	#endif
	&s2n_ecc_curve_secp256r1,
	&s2n_ecc_curve_secp384r1,
	};
	/* Curve p256 is at the top of the list in order to minimize HRR */
	const struct s2n_ecc_named_curve *const s2n_ecc_pref_list_20230623[] = {
	&s2n_ecc_curve_secp256r1,
	#if EVP_APIS_SUPPORTED
	&s2n_ecc_curve_x25519,
	#endif
	&s2n_ecc_curve_secp384r1,
	};

Solution:

WillChilds-Klein did a similar fix for PQ in #4100.
The curves will need an is_supported method to check for runtime support. Then they can always be included on the lists, but skipped at runtime if not usable.

• Does this change what S2N sends over the wire? If yes, explain.
• Does this change any public APIs? If yes, explain.
• Which versions of TLS will this impact?

Requirements / Acceptance Criteria:

What must a solution address in order to solve the problem? How do we know the solution is complete?

• RFC links: Links to relevant RFC(s)
• Related Issues: Link any relevant issues
• Will the Usage Guide or other documentation need to be updated?
• Testing: How will this change be tested? Call out new integration tests, functional tests, or particularly interesting/important unit tests.
  • Will this change trigger SAW changes? Changes to the state machine, the s2n_handshake_io code that controls state transitions, the DRBG, or the corking/uncorking logic could trigger SAW failures.
  • Should this change be fuzz tested? Will it handle untrusted input? Create a separate issue to track the fuzzing work.

Out of scope:

Is there anything the solution will intentionally NOT address?