-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.6k
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
Add getters for some fields #7216
Add getters for some fields #7216
Conversation
@lpy4105 according to the new process only planned work that is scheduled for the current quarter should have 'high-priority' label. PRs with 'high-priority' label should be added to the unified board. This PR is labelled 'high-priority' but is not on the unified board. Does this PR belong to some stream of work we planned for this quarter? |
@yanesca This is from last quarter and I don't see any reason to abandon it. |
@gilles-peskine-arm thank you for confirming. I am not trying to challenge the necessity of this work or proposing to abandon it. There is an inconsistency between the number of items on the unified board and the items labelled as 'priority-high' and would like to figure out what is going on. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please add tests & changelog
Signed-off-by: Pengyu Lv <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pengyu Lv <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pengyu Lv <[email protected]>
It would be convenient for users to query the endpoint type directly from a ssl context: ``` mbedtls_ssl_conf_get_endpoint( mbedtls_ssl_context_get_config(&ssl)) ``` Signed-off-by: Pengyu Lv <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pengyu Lv <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pengyu Lv <[email protected]>
d326840
to
7c57b9d
Compare
Adding tests results a conflict with Changes:
|
Signed-off-by: Pengyu Lv <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Pengyu Lv <[email protected]>
7c57b9d
to
5a3f5f4
Compare
Please merge (e.g. |
And please don't forget to update labels (@tom-daubney-arm remember to remove |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall LGTM. Testing looks sufficient.
A couple of minor points to address if you agree that they are beneficial changes but nothing that should hold up review. Thanks!
/** | ||
* \brief Get the hostname that checked against the received | ||
* server certificate. It is used to set the ServerName | ||
* TLS extension, too, if that extension is enabled. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
nit: remove the commas around the word "too". Not really needed here.
mbedtls_ssl_context ssl; | ||
|
||
mbedtls_ssl_init(&ssl); | ||
USE_PSA_INIT(); | ||
|
||
TEST_ASSERT(mbedtls_ssl_set_hostname(&ssl, hostname0) == 0); | ||
hostname = mbedtls_ssl_get_hostname(&ssl); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't really like the naming of the variables here. I know hostname0
and hostname1
existed before this PR but since we're here it might be nicer to rename them a bit for clarity. Maybe to distinguish between inputs and outputs so perhaps hostname0
--> input_hotstname0
, similar for hostname1
and then perhaps hostname
--> ouput_hostname
.
This is just my preference and I accept others may not think this is needed so I won't request changes just for this, but consider changing them if you agree.
I think Tom's comments are sensible, but I don't think it's worth iterating the PR just for this. |
Description
Partially Fix: #6840
The getters are added for the convenience of application usage.
Gatekeeper checklist