Testing strategy for `MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO` ============================================= This document records the testing strategy used so far in implementing `MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO`. General considerations ---------------------- There needs to be at least one build in `all.sh` that enables `MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO` and runs the full battery of tests; currently that's ensured by the fact that `scripts/config.py full` enables `MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO`. There needs to be at least one build with `MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO` disabled (as long as it's optional); currently that's ensured by the fact that it's disabled in the default config. Generally, code review is enough to ensure that PSA APIs are indeed used where they should be when `MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO` is enabled. However, when it comes to TLS, we also have the option of using debug messages to confirm which code path is taken. This is generaly un-necessary, except when a decision is made at run-time about whether to use the PSA or legacy code path. For example, for record protection, currently some ciphers are supported via PSA while some others aren't, with a run-time fallback. In this case, it's good to have a debug message checked by the test case to confirm that the right decision was made at run-time, i. e. that we didn't use the fallback for ciphers that are supposed to be supported. New APIs meant for application use ---------------------------------- For example, `mbedtls_pk_setup_opaque()` is meant to be used by applications in order to create PK contexts that can then be passed to existing TLS and X.509 APIs (which remain unchanged). In that case, we want: - unit testing of the new API and directly-related APIs - for example: - in `test_suite_pk` we have a new test function `pk_psa_utils` that exercises `mbedtls_pk_setup_opaque()` and checks that various utility functions (`mbedtls_pk_get_type()` etc.) work and the functions that are expected to fail (`mbedtls_pk_verify()` etc) return the expected error. - in `test_suite_pk` we modified the existing `pk_psa_sign` test function to check that signature generation works as expected - in `test_suite_pkwrite` we should have a new test function checking that exporting (writing out) the public part of the key works as expected and that exporting the private key fails as expected. - integration testing of the new API with each existing API which should accepts a context created this way - for example: - in `programs/ssl/ssl_client2` a new option `key_opaque` that causes the new API to be used, and one or more tests in `ssl-opt.sh` using that. (We should have the same server-side.) - in `test_suite_x509write` we have a new test function `x509_csr_check_opaque()` checking integration of the new API with the existing `mbedtls_x509write_csr_set_key()`. (We should have something similar for `mbedtls_x509write_crt_set_issuer_key()`.) For some APIs, for example with `mbedtls_ssl_conf_psk_opaque()`, testing in `test_suite_ssl` was historicaly not possible, so we only have testing in `ssl-opt.sh`. New APIs meant for internal use ------------------------------- For example, `mbedtls_cipher_setup_psa()` is meant to be used by the TLS layer, but probably not directly by applications. In that case, we want: - unit testing of the new API and directly-related APIs - for example: - in `test_suite_cipher`, the existing test functions `auth_crypt_tv` and `test_vec_crypt` gained a new parameter `use_psa` and corresponding test cases - integration testing: - usually already covered by existing tests for higher-level modules: - for example simple use of `mbedtls_cipher_setup_psa()` in TLS is already covered by running the existing TLS tests in a build with `MBEDTLS_USA_PSA_CRYPTO` enabled - however if use of the new API in higher layers involves more logic that use of the old API, specific integrations test may be required - for example, the logic to fall back from `mbedtls_cipher_setup_psa()` to `mbedtls_cipher_setup()` in TLS is tested by `run_test_psa` in `ssl-opt.sh`. Internal changes ---------------- For example, use of PSA to compute the TLS 1.2 PRF. Changes in this category rarely require specific testing, as everything should be already be covered by running the existing tests in a build with `MBEDTLS_USE_PSA_CRYPTO` enabled; however we need to make sure the existing test have sufficient coveraged, and improve them if necessary. However, if additional logic is involved, or there are run-time decisions about whether to use the PSA or legacy code paths, specific tests might be in order.