On Fri, 2019-05-17 at 08:47 +0200, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 10:48 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
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?
I replied in private previously,
sorry, never received that reply.
making a point that in fedora we remove the code and disable everything but secp256r1, 384r1 and 521r1. So any tests that use 192r1 or 224r1 will not be executed at all in that platform.
Understood, are you asking to add some tests with other curves ?
Simo.