The current definition of PSA_ALG_IS_HASH_AND_SIGN includes
PSA_ALG_RSA_PKCS1V15_SIGN_RAW and PSA_ALG_ECDSA_ANY, which don't strictly
follow the hash-and-sign paradigm: the algorithm does not encode a hash
algorithm that is applied prior to the signature step. The definition in
fact encompasses what can be used with psa_sign_hash/psa_verify_hash, so
it's the correct definition for PSA_ALG_IS_SIGN_HASH. Therefore this commit
moves definition of PSA_ALG_IS_HASH_AND_SIGN to PSA_ALG_IS_SIGN_HASH, and
replace the definition of PSA_ALG_IS_HASH_AND_SIGN by a correct one (based
on PSA_ALG_IS_SIGN_HASH, excluding the algorithms where the pre-signature
step isn't to apply the hash encoded in the algorithm).
In the definition of PSA_ALG_SIGN_GET_HASH, keep the condition for a nonzero
output to be PSA_ALG_IS_HASH_AND_SIGN.
Everywhere else in the code base (definition of PSA_ALG_IS_SIGN_MESSAGE, and
every use of PSA_ALG_IS_HASH_AND_SIGN outside of crypto_values.h), we meant
PSA_ALG_IS_SIGN_HASH where we wrote PSA_ALG_IS_HASH_AND_SIGN, so do a
global replacement.
```
git grep -l IS_HASH_AND_SIGN ':!include/psa/crypto_values.h' | xargs perl -i -pe 's/ALG_IS_HASH_AND_SIGN/ALG_IS_SIGN_HASH/g'
```
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
This is a variant of PSA_ALG_RSA_PSS which currently has exactly the same
behavior, but is intended to have a different behavior when verifying
signatures.
In a subsequent commit, PSA_ALG_RSA_PSS will change to requiring the salt
length to be what it would produce when signing, as is currently documented,
whereas PSA_ALG_RSA_PSS_ANY_SALT will retain the current behavior of
allowing any salt length (including 0).
Changes in this commit:
* New algorithm constructor PSA_ALG_RSA_PSS_ANY_SALT.
* New predicates PSA_ALG_IS_RSA_PSS_STANDARD_SALT (corresponding to
PSA_ALG_RSA_PSS) and PSA_ALG_IS_RSA_PSS_ANY_SALT (corresponding to
PSA_ALG_RSA_PSS_ANY_SALT).
* Support for the new predicates in macro_collector.py (needed for
generate_psa_constant_names).
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Use the encoding from an upcoming version of the specification.
Add as much (or as little) testing as is currently present for Camellia.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Fix typos in the PBKDF2 documentation
Correct the constraints on PSA_KEY_USAGE_DERIVE and PSA_KEY_USAGE_VERIFY_DERIVATION, aligning them with the note against psa_key_derivation_input_key(). All key inputs must have the required usage flag to permit output or verification.
Correct the constraints on PSA_KEY_DERIVATION_INPUT_SECRET and PSA_KEY_DERIVATION_INPUT_PASSWORD, aligning them with 4feb611. psa_key_derivation_verify_key() does not require the secret/password input to be a key.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thoelke <andrew.thoelke@arm.com>
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>
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>
