Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clean up s2n_cipher struct #3983

Closed
lrstewart opened this issue May 5, 2023 · 1 comment
Closed

Clean up s2n_cipher struct #3983

lrstewart opened this issue May 5, 2023 · 1 comment

Comments

@lrstewart
Copy link
Contributor

lrstewart commented May 5, 2023

Problem:

is_available really shouldn't be returning a uint8_t:

uint8_t (*is_available)(void);

While we're fixing that, might as well make all the methods return S2N_RESULT ;)

Solution:

At least return a bool instead of a uint8_t. Maybe return S2N_RESULT and set a bool*-- I don't think is_available is called widely, so it shouldn't be too awkward to use that way.

All the ciphers implementing the structure will need to be updated.

  • Does this change what S2N sends over the wire? If yes, explain.
  • Does this change any public APIs? If yes, explain.
  • Which versions of TLS will this impact?

Requirements / Acceptance Criteria:

What must a solution address in order to solve the problem? How do we know the solution is complete?

  • RFC links: Links to relevant RFC(s)
  • Related Issues: Link any relevant issues
  • Will the Usage Guide or other documentation need to be updated?
  • Testing: How will this change be tested? Call out new integration tests, functional tests, or particularly interesting/important unit tests.
    • Will this change trigger SAW changes? Changes to the state machine, the s2n_handshake_io code that controls state transitions, the DRBG, or the corking/uncorking logic could trigger SAW failures.
    • Should this change be fuzz tested? Will it handle untrusted input? Create a separate issue to track the fuzzing work.

Out of scope:

Is there anything the solution will intentionally NOT address?

@jouho
Copy link
Contributor

jouho commented Jul 11, 2024

Done in #4630, #4638, #4639

@jouho jouho closed this as completed Jul 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants