7:52 p.m.
Ade:
Looks good, just a question.
1. This code here:
def setup_contexts(mechanism, sym_key, nonce_iv):
....
# If initialization vector was supplied use it, otherwise set it to None
if nonce_iv:
iv_si = nss.SecItem(nonce_iv)
iv_param = nss.param_from_iv(mechanism, iv_si)
else:
iv_length = nss.get_iv_length(mechanism)
if iv_length > 0:
iv_data = nss.generate_random(iv_length)
iv_si = nss.SecItem(iv_data)
iv_param = nss.param_from_iv(mechanism, iv_si)
else:
iv_param = None
Note the else clause where we generate an init vector.
Can we use the nice method you provided "generate_nonce_iv" to do this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ade Lee" <alee(a)redhat.com>
To: pki-devel(a)redhat.comgenerate_nonce_iv
Subject: [Pki-devel] [PATCH] 206 - get archival working in python key client
This patch gets key archival working for the Key python client.
Ade
_______________________________________________
Pki-devel mailing list
Pki-devel(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel
8:26 p.m.
On 3/4/2014 1:23 PM, Ade Lee wrote:
This patch gets key archival working for the Key python client.
Ade
Not sure if this is correct.
Test #19 archives key1 with a new client_key_id. I suppose this will
generate a new key record with a new key_id.
Test #20 is getting the key_info with the above client_key_id, but then
it retrieves the key data using an old key_id obtained from test #4, not
from the key_info just obtained. Is the test comparing the right keys?
--
Endi S. Dewata
8:49 p.m.
I think you are correct, but they may be the same keys anway.
He looks like he has the same key archived under two different id's.
He's retrieving it at the end using the old id.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Endi Sukma Dewata" <edewata(a)redhat.com>
To: alee(a)redhat.com, pki-devel(a)redhat.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 6:26:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Pki-devel] [PATCH] 206 - get archival working in python key client
On 3/4/2014 1:23 PM, Ade Lee wrote:
> This patch gets key archival working for the Key python client.
>
> Ade
Not sure if this is correct.
Test #19 archives key1 with a new client_key_id. I suppose this will
generate a new key record with a new key_id.
Test #20 is getting the key_info with the above client_key_id, but then
it retrieves the key data using an old key_id obtained from test #4, not
from the key_info just obtained. Is the test comparing the right keys?
--
Endi S. Dewata
_______________________________________________
Pki-devel mailing list
Pki-devel(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel
9:13 p.m.
Yes, they are the same keys, but in this case test #20 might report a
false positive.
The key generated in test #4 is already validated in tests #7 and #8.
Test #20 basically repeats those steps. The key archived in test #19 is
not validated, which I suppose is the purpose of test #20.
--
Endi S. Dewata
On 3/4/2014 8:49 PM, John Magne wrote:
I think you are correct, but they may be the same keys anway.
He looks like he has the same key archived under two different id's.
He's retrieving it at the end using the old id.
> Not sure if this is correct.
>
> Test #19 archives key1 with a new client_key_id. I suppose this will
> generate a new key record with a new key_id.
>
> Test #20 is getting the key_info with the above client_key_id, but then
> it retrieves the key data using an old key_id obtained from test #4, not
> from the key_info just obtained. Is the test comparing the right keys?
11:03 a.m.
Good catch on the test.
I updated the test and changed the code as Jack suggested. Updated
patch attached. This one supersedes the old one.
Ade
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 21:13 -0600, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
Yes, they are the same keys, but in this case test #20 might report a
false positive.
The key generated in test #4 is already validated in tests #7 and #8.
Test #20 basically repeats those steps. The key archived in test #19 is
not validated, which I suppose is the purpose of test #20.
11:09 a.m.
acked by Endi. Pushed to master.
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 12:03 -0500, Ade Lee wrote:
Good catch on the test.
I updated the test and changed the code as Jack suggested. Updated
patch attached. This one supersedes the old one.
Ade
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 21:13 -0600, Endi Sukma Dewata wrote:
> Yes, they are the same keys, but in this case test #20 might report a
> false positive.
>
> The key generated in test #4 is already validated in tests #7 and #8.
> Test #20 basically repeats those steps. The key archived in test #19 is
> not validated, which I suppose is the purpose of test #20.
>
_______________________________________________
Pki-devel mailing list
Pki-devel(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pki-devel
3726
days inactive
3727
days old
6 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Ade Lee -
Endi Sukma Dewata -
John Magne