This algorithm is used for example by the Thread 1.1.1 specification,
which is not public but can be obtained free of charge at
https://www.threadgroup.org/ThreadSpec
Here it doesn't really make sense to define a parametrised family, as
this really seems to be the only use of PBKDF2 with a CMAC-based PRF (or
with any PRF other than HMAC with SHA1 or SHA2, for that matter).
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
Might make the implementer's life a bit simpler, and is not a big
constraint on applications.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
No change of behaviour, encoding or naming intended in this commit: just
describe the same behaviour, but in a way that's hopefully clearer and
more complete.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
Note on naming: previously considered input_numeric but then thought the
other two input function are "input <name>" not "input <adjective>" so
decided to follow that pattern. input_int would be shorter but sounds
too much like the C type, which could be confusing as that's not the
type of the parameter; IMO "integer" avoids that problem.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
For the numeric values, I followed the apparent existing convention:
- first byte is 01 for secret inputs, 02 for non-secret inputs
- then second by is just incremented for each new input type
The documentation references a function that will be introduced in the
next commit.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
The documentation references functions that will be introduced in later
commits, but hopefully from the naming it's already clear what those
function will do.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
Question to reviewers: regarding the numeric values, I'm not sure I've
incremented the right byte/nibble. Should this be 0x1201, 0x1202
instead, or something else? Is there a convention I should be aware of?
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
This reverts commit c75d9f589b.
This was merged by mistake in development instead of development_3.0.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
Fix expected error code when importing a persistent key or
registering a key with an invalid key identifier:
PSA_ERROR_INVALID_ARGUMENT instead of PSA_ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE.
Signed-off-by: Ronald Cron <ronald.cron@arm.com>
Implementers and users would have to refer to the RFC for the detailed
specification of the algorithm anyway.
Keep a mention of the curves and hashes involved for avoidance of doubt.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
The coordinates are over $F_{2^{255}-19}$, so by the general
definition of the bit size associated with the curve in the
specification, the value for size attribute of keys is 255.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
The size attribute of a key is expressed in bits, so use bits in the
documentation. (The documentation of psa_export_key() describes the
export format, so it counts in bytes.)
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Call it “SHAKE256-512”, just like SHA3-512 has 512 bits of output.
SHAKE256-64 looks like it's 64 bits of output, but this is 64 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
