-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 834
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
Initial rewrite of X509 STORE to replicate openssl behavior #8087
Initial rewrite of X509 STORE to replicate openssl behavior #8087
Conversation
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.
Do we have tests for inter cert attributes like key usage and path length?
Retest this please. |
Comments were added to the section of code
We do for direct usage of the CM, but I dont think anything for X509 STORE. |
} | ||
} | ||
|
||
return ret == WOLFSSL_SUCCESS ? WOLFSSL_SUCCESS : WOLFSSL_FAILURE; |
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.
Can you confirm you only want to return success or failure and not any other possible return codes? Old logic was >= 0 success else failure.
@douzzer does this need to be WC_NO_ERR_TRACE(WOLFSSL_FAILURE)
, etc?
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.
Talked with douzzer, he said this should be OK.
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.
@ColtonWilley the first half of the question still stands -- do we really want to be masking the true return code here?
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.
Yes actually I believe we do. I believe openssl only returns 0 or 1, and uses X509_STORE_CTX_get_error
for error reporting.
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.
OpenSSL returns -1
on an error, 0
on verification failure, and 1
on verification success. This rework conforms to that API.
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.
Almost there. Last round of comments.
src/x509_str.c
Outdated
while (cnt > 0 && i > 0) { | ||
/* The inner X509 is owned by somebody else, NULL out the reference */ | ||
obj = wolfSSL_sk_X509_OBJECT_value(objs, i); | ||
if (obj != NULL) { | ||
obj->type = 0; | ||
obj->data.x509 = NULL; | ||
} | ||
cnt--; | ||
i--; | ||
} |
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.
This could also be a crl
so maybe better to use obj->data.ptr
. Same effect just showing that we don't want to free anything the WOLFSSL_X509_OBJECT
holds.
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.
In the future it would be nice to up ref what gets put into the object list so that we can just call pop_free
but that is not necessary on this PR.
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.
Great catch on the CRLs. Agreed this whole thing could use a second pass at some point to take a close look at better using refcounts, but I think its large enough as is.
* CA=TRUE */ | ||
if (wolfSSL_X509_NAME_cmp(&x509->issuer, &x509->subject) == 0) { | ||
result = X509StoreAddCa(store, x509, WOLFSSL_USER_CA); | ||
#if !defined(WOLFSSL_SIGNER_DER_CERT) |
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.
Why !WOLFSSL_SIGNER_DER_CERT
here?
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.
If !WOLFSSL_SIGNER_DER_CERT, CM internals do not hold onto the full DER buffer of the cert. In this case we need to keep a copy of it ourselves to meet requirements to return the chain. If WOLFSSL_SIGNER_DER_CERT, is defined, no need to keep a separate trusted stack as we can retrieve DER buffer from the underlying CM.
b02f145
to
a17ca40
Compare
…nal names, get rid of all lines over 80 chars
…ory leak for SSL case with proper flow
…layer X509_V_FLAG_PARTIAL_CHAIN; in src/x509_str.c, fix several C++ "invalid conversion" errors in X509StoreFreeObjList() and wolfSSL_X509_STORE_get0_objects().
a17ca40
to
cab20fb
Compare
retest this please |
Description
Rewrite the X509 STORE internals to replicate openssl behavior.
Fixes zd 18689
Testing
Added 9 additional test cases to api.c
Checklist