OID subidentifiers are encoded as follow. For every byte:
* The top bit is 1 if there is another byte to come, 0 if this is the
last byte.
* The other 7 bits form 7 bits of the number. These groups of 7 are
concatenated together in big-endian order.
Overlong encodings are explicitly disallowed by the BER/DER/X690
specification. For example, the number 1 cannot be encoded as:
0x80 0x80 0x01
It must be encoded as:
0x01
Enforce this in Mbed TLS' OID DER-to-string parser.
Signed-off-by: David Horstmann <david.horstmann@arm.com>
Pacify Clang >=15 which complained:
```
include/psa/crypto.h:91:23: error: empty paragraph passed to '\retval' command [-Werror,-Wdocumentation]
* \retval #PSA_SUCCESS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
```
This commit performs the following systematic replacement:
```
perl -i -0777 -p -e 's/([\\@])(retval +\S+)\n(?! *\*? *([^\n \\*\/]|\\[cp]\b))/$1$2 ${1}emptydescription\n/g' $(git ls-files '*.[hc]' '*.function' '*.jinja')
```
i.e. add an `\emptydescription` argument to `\retval` commands (or
`@retval`, which we don't normally used) that are followed by a single word,
unless the next line looks like it contains text which would be the
description.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Since Clang 15, `clang -Wdocumentation` warns about an empty description in
a Doxygen `\retval` command:
```
include/psa/crypto.h:91:23: error: empty paragraph passed to '\retval' command [-Werror,-Wdocumentation]
* \retval #PSA_SUCCESS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^
```
Ideally `\retval` directives should have a description that describes the
precise meaning of the return value, but we commonly use an empty
description when the return value is a status code and the status code's
description is sufficient documentation.
As a workaround, define a Doxygen command `\emptydescription` that we can
use to make the description source code non-empty, without changing the
appearance. Using the command will be done in a subsequent commit.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
The first 2 components of an OID are combined together into the same
subidentifier via the formula:
subidentifier = (component1 * 40) + component2
The current code extracts component1 and component2 using division and
modulo as one would expect. However, there is a subtlety in the
specification[1]:
>This packing of the first two object identifier components recognizes
>that only three values are allocated from the root node, and at most
>39 subsequent values from nodes reached by X = 0 and X = 1.
If the root node (component1) is 2, the subsequent node (component2)
may be greater than 38. For example, the following are real OIDs:
* 2.40.0.25, UPU standard S25
* 2.49.0.0.826.0, Met Office
* 2.999, Allocated example OID
This has 2 implications that the current parsing code does not take
account of:
1. The second component may be > 39, so (subidentifier % 40) is not
correct in all circumstances.
2. The first subidentifier (containing the first 2 components) may be
more than one byte long. Currently we assume it is just 1 byte.
Improve parsing code to deal with these cases correctly.
[1] Rec. ITU-T X.690 (02/2021), 8.19.4
Signed-off-by: David Horstmann <david.horstmann@arm.com>
IAR was warning that conditional execution could bypass initialisation of
variables, although those same variables were not used uninitialised.
Signed-off-by: Paul Elliott <paul.elliott@arm.com>
These tests check for failures, but can only fail where SIZE_MAX
exceeds some limit (UINT_MAX or UINT32_MAX) and do not fail
in this way otherwise - so guards are needed.
Signed-off-by: Dave Rodgman <dave.rodgman@arm.com>
