On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 11:42 +0200, Niels Möller wrote:
Simo Sorce simo@redhat.com writes:
Attached find patch that adds points checks to the ECDH test case. Let me know if that's ok or if you prefer a whole new test.
I think it's ok to have it in the same file.
-static void -set_point (struct ecc_point *p,
const char *x, const char *y)+static int +ret_set_point (struct ecc_point *p,
const char *x, const char *y){
I think it's nicer to just change set_point to return int, and wrap all existing calls in ASSERT, e.g,
- set_point (&A, ax, ay);
- ASSERT (set_point (&A, ax, ay));
in test_dh. Or name functions as int set_point(...), void set_point_or_die (...), but I think ASSERT is still clearer, in this case.
Ok, will change.
- test_public_key ("(0,0) with secp-192r1", &_nettle_secp_192r1, "0", "0", 0);
- test_public_key (
- "(P,0) with secp-192r1", &_nettle_secp_192r1,
- "6277101735386680763835789423207666416083908700390324961279",
- "0", 0);
Any particular reason the tests are all for secp_192r1 ?
Less copy-pasting as the numbers are smaller, the curve used really makes no difference.
Nioks, is the fact we do not enable 192r1 in some distribution a problem?
Simo.