Previously, CSRs and CRTs from the server1* family in testa/data_files
were generated through OpenSSL. This commit changes the build instructions
to use Mbed TLS' example applications programs/x509/cert_write and
programs/x509/cert_req instead.
This commit adds a command line option `md` to the example application
`programs/x509/cert_req` allowing to specify the hash algorithm to use
when signing the CSR.
Return the condition compilation flags surrounding
`mbedtls_ecdh_compute_shared()`, `mbedtls_ecdh_gen_public()`,
`mbedtls_ecdsa_sign()` and `mbedtls_ecdsa_verify()` that were accidentally
removed in a previous merge.
Resolves#2163
This commit modifies a bounds check in `mbedtls_ecp_check_budget()` to
be correct even if the requested number of ECC operations would overflow
the operation counter.
Context:
The macro `MBEDTLS_ECP_BUDGET()` is called before performing a
number of potentially time-consuming ECC operations. If restartable
ECC is enabled, it wraps a call to `mbedtls_ecp_check_budget()`
which in turn checks if the requested number of operations can be
performed without exceeding the maximum number of consecutive ECC
operations.
Issue:
The function `mbedtls_ecp_check_budget()` expects a the number
of requested operations to be given as a value of type `unsigned`,
while some calls of the wrapper macro `MBEDTLS_ECP_BUDGET()` use
expressions of type `size_t`.
This rightfully leads to warnings about implicit truncation
from `size_t` to `unsigned` on some compilers.
Fix:
This commit makes the truncation explicit by adding an explicit cast
to `unsigned` in the expansion of the `MBEDTLS_ECP_BUDGET()` macro.
Justification:
Functionally, the new version is equivalent to the previous code.
The warning about truncation can be discarded because, as can be
inferred from `ecp.h`, the number of requested operations is never
larger than 1000.
Use `( x >> y ) & z` instead of `x >> y & z`. Both are equivalent
by operator precedence, but the former is more readable and the
commonly used idiom in the library.
Correct a typo in an AES XTS implementation comment where the relevant
NIST standard was incorrectly referred to as NIST 80-38E instead of NIST
800-38E.
It is inaccurate to call a data unit a "sector". A disk sector is a
common use case for the data unit, but there exist other types of data
units that are not sectors.
