WebKit Bugzilla
New
Browse
Log In
×
Sign in with GitHub
or
Remember my login
Create Account
·
Forgot Password
Forgotten password account recovery
RESOLVED FIXED
171213
[GCrypt] CryptoKeyRSA: implement create(), keySizeInBits(), buildAlgorithm(), exportData()
https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171213
Summary
[GCrypt] CryptoKeyRSA: implement create(), keySizeInBits(), buildAlgorithm(),...
Zan Dobersek
Reported
2017-04-24 00:56:22 PDT
[GCrypt] CryptoKeyRSA: implement create(), keySizeInBits(), buildAlgorithm(), exportData()
Attachments
Patch
(12.72 KB, patch)
2017-04-24 01:19 PDT
,
Zan Dobersek
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Patch for landing
(12.72 KB, patch)
2017-04-25 22:54 PDT
,
Zan Dobersek
no flags
Details
Formatted Diff
Diff
Show Obsolete
(1)
View All
Add attachment
proposed patch, testcase, etc.
Zan Dobersek
Comment 1
2017-04-24 01:19:34 PDT
Created
attachment 307961
[details]
Patch
Michael Catanzaro
Comment 2
2017-04-24 06:53:04 PDT
Comment on
attachment 307961
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=307961&action=review
Looks good. Please wait for Jiewen before committing, as usual.
> Source/WebCore/crypto/gcrypt/CryptoKeyRSAGCrypt.cpp:337 > + // dp -- d mod (p - 1)
Thank you for the comments. ;)
> Source/WebCore/crypto/gcrypt/CryptoKeyRSAGCrypt.cpp:341 > + gcry_mpi_sub_ui(pm1MPI, pm1MPI, 1);
Do you think it would be safer to use an extra local variable for the result here (i.e. have both pMPI and pm1MPI locals)? I'm sure this is fine now and probably will be forever, but it could be disastrous if future versions of GCrypt can't handle the first parameter being the same as a subsequent parameter. That's probably paranoid though.
Zan Dobersek
Comment 3
2017-04-24 07:37:02 PDT
Comment on
attachment 307961
[details]
Patch View in context:
https://bugs.webkit.org/attachment.cgi?id=307961&action=review
>> Source/WebCore/crypto/gcrypt/CryptoKeyRSAGCrypt.cpp:341 >> + gcry_mpi_sub_ui(pm1MPI, pm1MPI, 1); > > Do you think it would be safer to use an extra local variable for the result here (i.e. have both pMPI and pm1MPI locals)? I'm sure this is fine now and probably will be forever, but it could be disastrous if future versions of GCrypt can't handle the first parameter being the same as a subsequent parameter. That's probably paranoid though.
This makes sense, I think. We could definitely avoid any bug that might manifest in libgcrypt due to aliased pointers being passed to gcry_mpi_*() functions. In this case, all this can be simplified into plain-allocating pm1MPI and then calling gcry_mpi_sub_ui(pm1MPI, pMP1, 1). I'll switch to that.
Zan Dobersek
Comment 4
2017-04-25 22:54:27 PDT
Created
attachment 308219
[details]
Patch for landing
Zan Dobersek
Comment 5
2017-04-26 00:40:30 PDT
Comment on
attachment 308219
[details]
Patch for landing Clearing flags on attachment: 308219 Committed
r215796
: <
http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/215796
>
Zan Dobersek
Comment 6
2017-04-26 00:40:34 PDT
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.
Note
You need to
log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Top of Page
Format For Printing
XML
Clone This Bug