Fixes many typos, and errors in comments.
* Clarifies many comments
* Grammar correction in config.pl help text
* Removed comment about MBEDTLS_X509_EXT_NS_CERT_TYPE.
* Comment typo fix (Dont => Don't)
* Comment typo fix (assure => ensure)
* Comment typo fix (byes => bytes)
* Added citation for quoted standard
* Comment typo fix (one complement => 1's complement)
The is some debate about whether to prefer "one's complement", "ones'
complement", or "1's complement". The more recent RFCs related to TLS
(RFC 6347, RFC 4347, etc) use " 1's complement", so I followed that
convention.
* Added missing ")" in comment
* Comment alignment
* Incorrect comment after #endif
The PKCS#1 standard says nothing about the relation between P and Q
but many libraries guarantee P>Q and mbed TLS did so too in earlier
versions.
This commit restores this behaviour.
Fix implementation and documentation missmatch for the function
arguments to mbedtls_gcm_finish(). Also, removed redundant if condition
that always evaluates to true.
The bracketing in some expressions where an assignment was being made in an if statement in cmac.c had been accidentally broken and was causing compiler warnings with armcc.
Minor fixes following review including:
* formatting changes including indentation and code style
* corrections
* removal of debug code
* clarification of code through variable renaming
* memory leak
* compiler warnings
Change the CMAC interface to match the mbedtls_md_hmac_xxxx() interface. This
changes the overall design of the CMAC interface to make it more consistent with
the existing HMAC interface, and will allow incremental updates of input data
rather than requiring all data to be presented at once, which is what the
current interface requires.
- use one less temporary buffer
- pedantic: in_len + 15 was a potential overflow
- use a more explicit name instead of 'flag'
- Mn was a bit misleading
The previous version had secret-dependent memory accesses. While it was
probably not an issue in practice cause the two bytes of the array are
probably on the same cache line anyway, as a matter of principle this should
be avoided.
