Mostly to reflect this has been implemented, and remove references to
temporary remains from the previous strategy (hash_info, legacy_or_psa)
which would probably be more confusing than helpful at this point.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
- Support for PSA_CRYPTO_CLIENT without PSA_CRYPTO_C is out of scope for
now but might be added later (the architecture supports that).
- While we're using a void pointer for md_ctx, we don't need a union
here; the union will be useful only if & when we remove the indirection.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
It's a rare scenario, but it's currently possible: if you use
mbedtls_cipher_xxx() to encrypt the communication between the application
and the crypto service, changing those functions to call PSA will break your
system.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Finish working out the RSA-PSS example in terms of what it implies about the
interface. The key takeaway is that a mixed-domain module must support
algorithms if they are available through either interface, and that's all
there is to it. The details of how dispatch is done don't matter, what
matters is only the availability, and it's just the disjunction of
availabilities.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
