Add policy usage flag to copy a key #108

Merged
gilles-peskine-arm merged 5 commits from psa-copy_key-policy into psa-api-1.0-beta 2019-05-16 06:08:14 -05:00
gilles-peskine-arm commented 2019-05-14 07:33:52 -05:00 (Migrated from github.com)

Require PSA_KEY_USAGE_COPY in psa_copy_key.

Require `PSA_KEY_USAGE_COPY` in `psa_copy_key`.
athoelke (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-05-14 08:23:07 -05:00
@ -844,6 +850,16 @@ psa_status_t psa_export_public_key(psa_key_handle_t handle,
* this function may be used to share a key with a different party,
athoelke (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-05-14 08:18:34 -05:00

The wording isn't completely clear, for example:

  • who is doing the "locking inside"? - presume this is the SE designer, but better to avoid unnamed actors in the documentation.
  • Is the use case here one where a key is being copied out of the SE into a volatile key (for example), and the SE design defaults to denying this operation unless the key is extractable? - presumably a copy within the SE would only require COPY policy in this set up?
The wording isn't completely clear, for example: * who is doing the "locking inside"? - presume this is the SE designer, but better to avoid unnamed actors in the documentation. * Is the use case here one where a key is being copied out of the SE into a volatile key (for example), and the SE design defaults to denying this operation unless the key is extractable? - presumably a copy within the SE would only require COPY policy in this set up?
@ -1459,6 +1459,22 @@
*/
athoelke (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-05-14 08:19:39 -05:00

psa_copy_key()

psa_copy_key()
athoelke (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-05-14 08:20:36 -05:00

Clarify use case? - as above

Clarify use case? - as above
gilles-peskine-arm (Migrated from github.com) reviewed 2019-05-14 09:26:50 -05:00
@ -844,6 +850,16 @@ psa_status_t psa_export_public_key(psa_key_handle_t handle,
* this function may be used to share a key with a different party,
gilles-peskine-arm (Migrated from github.com) commented 2019-05-14 09:26:50 -05:00

I updated the documentation.

I updated the documentation.
yanesca (Migrated from github.com) approved these changes 2019-05-16 05:16:17 -05:00
yanesca (Migrated from github.com) left a comment

@athoelke 's comments have been addressed, looks good to me.

@athoelke 's comments have been addressed, looks good to me.
Patater commented 2019-05-16 06:08:06 -05:00 (Migrated from github.com)

CI failure is ABI job (known to fail until https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/2636 lands in the development branch) and USE_PSA_CRYPTO, which doesn't work on the API branch.

CI failure is ABI job (known to fail until https://github.com/ARMmbed/mbedtls/pull/2636 lands in the development branch) and `USE_PSA_CRYPTO`, which doesn't work on the API branch.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No reviewers
No milestone
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set

Reference
gh-ARMmbed/mbed-crypto!108
No description provided.