Jarkko Sakkinen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > (1) Rename ->digest and ->digest_len to ->m and ->m_size to represent the
> > input to the signature verification algorithm, reflecting that
> > ->digest may no longer actually *be* a digest.
> ...
> These renames emit enough noise to be split into a separate patch.
Yeah, I had considered that, so I've now done that.
> > + if (sig->algo_takes_data) {
> > + sig->m_size = sinfo->authattrs_len;
> > + memcpy(sig->m, sinfo->authattrs, sinfo->authattrs_len);
> > + sig->m[0] = ASN1_CONS_BIT | ASN1_SET;
> > + ret = 0;
> > + } else {
> > + u8 tag = ASN1_CONS_BIT | ASN1_SET;
> > +
> > + ret = crypto_shash_init(desc);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto error;
> > + ret = crypto_shash_update(desc, &tag, 1);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto error;
> > + ret = crypto_shash_finup(desc, sinfo->authattrs + 1,
> > + sinfo->authattrs_len - 1,
> > + sig->m);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + goto error;
> > + }
Thinking further on this, I think it's better just to do the copy and modify
unconditionally and then in the second case here just call
crypto_hash_digest(). That means we end up doing a single crypto call on an
aligned buffer. It's not like expect the authattrs to be particularly big for
an RSA signature.
David
