Identifier value was not consistent with PSA conventions (last byte is
reserved for hash algorithms or used in algorithms parametrized by
a hash).
Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
Making the cipher suite struct internal made a number of types and
macros in the interface unused.
Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
Hiding the structure of the cipher suite implementation allows for
greater flexibility.
To preserve maximum flexibility, the constructor is replaced by
individual setter/getter functions.
Convenience macros and or functions can be added later.
Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
In the key types API, PSA Crypto uses ECC to denote Elliptic curve
cryptography and DH to denote Finite Field Diffie-Hellman.
Change PSA_PAKE_PRIMITIVE_TYPE_XXX macros to be aligned.
Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
The main purpose of psa_pake_get_key_share() is to provide a more
straightforward and convenient call flow for regular PAKEs. Most PAKEs
have a single key share and need a flow like this:
op=PSA_PAKE_OPERATION_INIT;
psa_pake_setup();
psa_pake_get_key_share();
psa_pake_set_key_share();
psa_pake_get_implicit_key();
Adding psa_pake_get/set_key_share() functions cuts out the
psa_pake_data_t constants from the users vision, hiding complexity that
exists only for unrelated PAKEs that aren't relevant for the user.
This comes with the cost of the two additional API functions that we need
to maintain.
Since the current stream of work focuses on enabling J-PAKE, there are
no benefits to these functions for now.
Once algorithms that can benefit from this simplification are added,
adding back these functions can be reconsidered.
Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
The documentation is calling PAKEs protocols but it has an
psa_algorithm_t identifier. To align the terminology, the documentation
should call them algorithms as well.
Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
Fix the typo in the macro definition and more specific parameter names
allow for future scripts to check validity of arguments.
Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
In most of the PAKEs the primitives are prime order groups, but some of
them might need the ring structure or just are using completely different
algebraic structures (eg. SRP or PQC schemes).
Signed-off-by: Janos Follath <janos.follath@arm.com>
This algorithm is used for example by the Thread 1.1.1 specification,
which is not public but can be obtained free of charge at
https://www.threadgroup.org/ThreadSpec
Here it doesn't really make sense to define a parametrised family, as
this really seems to be the only use of PBKDF2 with a CMAC-based PRF (or
with any PRF other than HMAC with SHA1 or SHA2, for that matter).
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
Might make the implementer's life a bit simpler, and is not a big
constraint on applications.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
No change of behaviour, encoding or naming intended in this commit: just
describe the same behaviour, but in a way that's hopefully clearer and
more complete.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
Note on naming: previously considered input_numeric but then thought the
other two input function are "input <name>" not "input <adjective>" so
decided to follow that pattern. input_int would be shorter but sounds
too much like the C type, which could be confusing as that's not the
type of the parameter; IMO "integer" avoids that problem.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
For the numeric values, I followed the apparent existing convention:
- first byte is 01 for secret inputs, 02 for non-secret inputs
- then second by is just incremented for each new input type
The documentation references a function that will be introduced in the
next commit.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
The documentation references functions that will be introduced in later
commits, but hopefully from the naming it's already clear what those
function will do.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
Question to reviewers: regarding the numeric values, I'm not sure I've
incremented the right byte/nibble. Should this be 0x1201, 0x1202
instead, or something else? Is there a convention I should be aware of?
Signed-off-by: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <manuel.pegourie-gonnard@arm.com>
Implementers and users would have to refer to the RFC for the detailed
specification of the algorithm anyway.
Keep a mention of the curves and hashes involved for avoidance of doubt.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
The coordinates are over $F_{2^{255}-19}$, so by the general
definition of the bit size associated with the curve in the
specification, the value for size attribute of keys is 255.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
The size attribute of a key is expressed in bits, so use bits in the
documentation. (The documentation of psa_export_key() describes the
export format, so it counts in bytes.)
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
Call it “SHAKE256-512”, just like SHA3-512 has 512 bits of output.
SHAKE256-64 looks like it's 64 bits of output, but this is 64 bytes.
Signed-off-by: Gilles Peskine <Gilles.Peskine@arm.com>
